1959 (5) TMI 56 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in filing the application for overtime wages.
2. Entitlement to overtime wages under the Indian Factories Act.
3. Applicability of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act to the case.
4. Definition and classification of workers under the Factories Act.
5. Interpretation and application of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Application for Overtime Wages:

The respondent claimed overtime wages from April 1, 1949, to September 30, 1954, and requested the delay in filing the application to be condoned. The respondent argued that the delay was due to ongoing correspondence with the railway administration, which rejected their claim on August 31, 1954. The Payment of Wages Authority condoned the delay for the period after May 1953 but rejected the claim for the period prior to May 19, 1953, on the preliminary ground of delay.

2. Entitlement to Overtime Wages under the Indian Factories Act:

The respondent alleged entitlement to overtime wages for working on Sundays without a compensatory holiday within three days before or after the Sunday worked, as required by Section 52 of the Indian Factories Act. The appellant conceded that the respondent was not given such holidays. The respondent claimed overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act, asserting that he was a worker within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act.

3. Applicability of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act to the Case:

Alternatively, the respondent argued that even if he was not a worker under the Factories Act, he was entitled to overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act by virtue of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The Authority accepted this contention, holding that Section 70 extended the provisions of the Factories Act to all employees in factories, thereby entitling the respondent to claim overtime wages.

4. Definition and Classification of Workers under the Factories Act:

The Authority examined whether the timekeepers and progress timekeepers were workers under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. The duties of the timekeepers included maintaining attendance records, preparing pay-sheets, and maintaining leave accounts, among others. The Authority concluded that the timekeepers were employees of the workshop but not workers under the Factories Act. However, progress timekeepers, who prepared progress time-sheets and operation time-sheets, were considered workers as their duties were incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process.

5. Interpretation and Application of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act:

The Authority's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, which states that the provisions of the Factories Act shall apply to persons employed in a factory, notwithstanding anything in the said Act. The Authority held that Section 70 extended the benefits of the Factories Act, including overtime wages under Section 59, to all employees in factories, regardless of whether they were classified as workers under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, confirming that Section 70 supplements the Factories Act by extending its provisions to all factory employees.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court confirmed the orders passed by the Authority, holding that the respondents were entitled to overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act by virtue of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The appeals were dismissed with costs.