9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Definition of 'worker' under Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948. 3. Entitlement to overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act: The primary issue was whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by respondents 2 and 3 after their retirement. The court observed that Section 33-C(2) provides that any workman entitled to receive any money or benefit from the employer, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, can have the amount decided by the Labour Court. The management contended that since respondents 2 and 3 had retired, they were no longer 'workmen' and thus could not invoke Section 33-C(2). However, the court referred to the Madras High Court's decisions in Tiruchi Srirangam Transport Co., Private Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madurai and Manicka Mudaliar v. Labour Court, Madras, which held that the term 'workman' includes discharged workmen. The court agreed with this view, concluding that the Labour Court was competent to entertain the application even though respondents 2 and 3 had retired. 2. Definition of 'worker' under Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948: The management argued that respondents 2 and 3, being watchmen, did not fall under the definition of 'worker' as per Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948, and thus were not entitled to overtime wages under Section 59. The court noted that Section 2(l) defines a 'worker' as a person employed in any manufacturing process, cleaning machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or any work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or its subject. The Labour Court had found that the watchmen's duties, such as guarding the premises and checking incoming and outgoing vehicles, were connected with the manufacturing process. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the relationship between the watchmen's duties and the manufacturing process was too remote. The court emphasized that the term 'incidental to or connected with' implies a proximate relationship, which was absent in this case. 3. Entitlement to overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948: The Labour Court had directed the management to pay overtime wages at twice the ordinary rate, including Dearness Allowance, under Section 59 of the Factories Act. The High Court examined whether the extra work performed by the watchmen during the factory's relocation could be considered part of the manufacturing process. The Labour Court had found that the watchmen helped dismantle machinery and load it into lorries, which it considered incidental to the manufacturing process. However, the High Court held that such activities were extraordinary and not part of the usual manufacturing process. The court concluded that dismantling and transporting machinery for relocation did not fall under the definition of 'manufacturing process' or work incidental to it. Consequently, the watchmen were not entitled to overtime wages under Section 59. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the Labour Court's order, holding that respondents 2 and 3 were not 'workers' under the Factories Act and thus not entitled to overtime wages under Section 59. The court emphasized the need for a proximate relationship between the employee's duties and the manufacturing process to qualify as a 'worker.' The petition was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.
|
