9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They had joined the Appellant company after 1948. The relevance of the reference to their having become workers of the company after 1948 will become clear when we deal with the facts of this case later. 3. Before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the company contended that all the claims were barred under an award of the Industrial Tribunal in Ref. No. 54 of 1949, which was made on 30-3-1950 and published on 11-5-1950. The Authority held that (1) the claims of the Booster Attendants for wages for overtime work and weekly off days were covered by the award, (2) the claims of applicants other than Booster Attendants were not covered by the award, and (3) the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act was not applicable to them, and dismissed the applications of Respondents 1 to 80. The applications made by Respondents 81 to 113 were allowed by the Third Additional Authority holding that the award was no bar to those applications and that the provisions of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act were applicable. 4. Appeals were filed by Respondents 1 to 80 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The Appellant company filed an appeal against the judgment in the applications of Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the workmen. The company and the union had entered into an agreement about June 1946 as regards wage scales of various categories of workers. The Tribunal, therefore, assumed that in respect of most of the daily rated workers the wages must have been fixed on the basis of what their monthly income would be for 26 working days. In the cases of the classes of workers specifically mentioned in demand 11(b) a weekly day off was enforced some time in the year 1948, while in the case of lamp repairers the weekly day off was enforced from 1st April 1949. Those categories of workers, therefore, used to work for all the 7 days of the week and earn wages for all the days till a short time before the reference. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded on the basis that in their case it cannot be said that daily rates of wages were fixed with reference to a month of 26 working days and therefore with the introduction of the weekly day off the wages of these workers were reduced, and that the concession of a weekly off would be a very doubtful benefit if as a result the monthly income of these workers was to go down. The Tribunal granted the demand under demand No. 11 (b) in respect of workers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither under the award or Under Section 18(3) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. It seems to have assumed that there was a scale of wages for weekly off days under the award. That this is an obvious mistake would be apparent from a reading of paragraphs 114 and 115 of the award to the following effect: 114. It must be remembered that the wages of daily rated workers are ordinarily fixed with reference to what their monthly income would be on the basis of a month consisting of 26 working days. This undoubtedly secures to them the benefit of holidays with pay... The company and the union have entered into an agreement about June 1946 as regards wage scales of various categories of workers... that in respect of most of the daily rated workers the wages must have been fixed on the basis of what their monthly income would be for 26 working days. 115. Some difference must however be made in the case of the classes of workers specifically mentioned in demand 11(b)...... Until recently these categories of workers used to work for all the 7 days of the week and earn wages for all the days. Certainly it cannot be said in their case that their daily rates of wages were fixed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must not enter in determining the rate of overtime. The union pointed out several specific categories in respect of whom injustice was done. One of these instances was that of booster attendants and their case was specifically dealt with and provided for. The grievance of the workers of the Mains Department was that they were made to work till 1.30 p.m. on Saturdays while factory workers were let off at 1 p.m. and that 47½ hours a week has been a very long-standing privilege of the workmen of this company and that if they are required to work for half an hour more on Saturdays they should be paid overtime at double the rate. After discussing this question the Tribunal specifically came to the conclusion that no directions in that respect were necessary. We cannot therefore agree with the Respondents that the sentences at the end of paragraph 126 to the following effect: I however recommend that where overtime work is given to workers not covered by the Factories Act, the rate should at least be the single basic wage plus dearness allowance. I do not however desire to give any general directions without knowing the nature of the work. would cover these cases. Demand No. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal it was conceded by the workmen that they were not governed by the Factories Act and the claim for the same overtime wages as those payable to workers under the Factories Act was based on the ground that there was no reason for any distinction between the two sets of workmen. It was therefore, held that so long as the award remains in force it must be held that these workmen are not governed by the Factories Act and are not entitled to the benefits thereof. In the present case also the question under the Factories Act had been considered but not the question whether they are entitled to overtime wages under the provisions of the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act. We consider that the workmen could and ought to have raised the question that even if they were not entitled to claim overtime wages at the same rate as payable to workers governed by the Factories Act, they should at least be paid the same rate as those payable to persons governed by the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act. The workers neither put forward the contention that they were entitled to the benefit of the Bombay. Shops & Establishments Act nor even that on considerations similar to those applicable to the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
