Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1989)IILLJ122P& H
M.R. Agnihotri, J.1. Haryana Apex Cooperative Bank Employees Union (Regd.) has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this writ petition through its President and General Secretary, for quashing the impugned order dated 3rd September, 1986 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, whereby the benefit of overtime allowance has been withdrawn by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and the Haryana State Cooperative Bank Limited, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.2. The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and it represents the employees of the Haryana State Cooperative Bank Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The respondent Bank is registered with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, respondent No. 1, under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The Bank observes its working hours from 10 AM to 5 PM with lunch break for half an hour on all the days of the week ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1962CriLJ417; (1961)GLR717
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These three appeals involve common questions and will, therefore, be disposed of by a single judgment. The facts involved in the appeals are identical and it will, therefore, be convenient to set out the facts of only one of the appeals, namely, Criminal Apeal No. 212/1960.2. The respondent is the Manager of Shree Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd., Jamnagar. The factory of the Company is situate in Jamnagar and is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act. 1948. It is common ground that at the material time a notice of periods of work for adults was displayed and correctly maintained in the factory of the Company as required by Section 61. The notice showed 7-00 a.m. to 11-00 a.m. and 11-30 a.m. to 3-30 pm- as the periods of work for adults wording in the first shift. The complainant, who is the Inspector of Factories, received a letter dated 8th June 1959 from the Joint Secretary, Digyijay Woollen Mills Kamdar Mandal, pointing out inter alia that though the time of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR785
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The above three Petitions are being disposed of by the present common Judgment and Order as the Labour Court has disposed of the Applications of the Respondents-workmen by a common Order dated 27.3.1996.2. The Petitioners, the Union of India, through the General Manager, 'Western Railway, are aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1996 in Applications filed by the Respondents-workmen on 21.10.1992 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming overtime wages for the periods from January, 1980 to December, 1989. The names of the individual workmen and the period of overtime wages and the claim is given in the body of the Writ Petition. According to the Respondents-workmen they had worked on various trains for a number of days during the said period spread over from January, 1980 to December, 1989. They have claimed overtime wages by trying to compute the amounts in each of their cases.3. The Petitioners filed their written statements in thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1993)IILLJ1219Raj; 1993(1)WLC698
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These three petitions arise out of a common order dated January 5, 1987 passed by the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. LCC 35/85, Case No. LCC 124/85, Case No. LCC 125/85 filed by 71 employees claiming overtime wages in terms of the Factories Act, 1948. Since the Labour Court has decided all the three applications by the common order and facts of all these writ petitions are by and large common, I am deciding all these writ petitions by a common order.2. The facts which are necessary for deciding controversy involved in these writ petitions are that the petitioner Hindustan Machine Tools is a company owned and controlled by the Government of India. It has its factories at various places in India as well as abroad. One of its factories is at Ajmer which is engaged in manufacture of machine tools. This factory is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 1948 Act). The respondent - workmen filed three separate applications under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)IILLJ655Bom
Chitale, J.1. These are applications against the decision by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the authority), on applications submitted by several employees of the Central Railway. The employees applied to the authority alleging that they worked for 51 hours a week, although according to the provisions and rules framed under the said act they were required to work only for 48 hours during a week; thus they have worked overtime for 3 hours per week, and hence they were entitled to extra wages payable as per rules framed under the said Act for the overtime work done by them during the period beginning with 1 April, 1952, upto the date of the applications. It is common ground that the employees are monthly rated employees, and that they are workers in a scheduled employment. 2. These applications were opposed by the Central Railway on the ground that the authority had no jurisdiction to entertain claims prior to 1957, and that the Mini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1383; [1990(60)FLR864]; JT1990(2)SC231; 1990LabIC1213; (1990)IILLJ201SC; 1990(1)SCALE798; (1990)3SCC50; [1990]2SCR617; 1990(2)LC254(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2060
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The workmen of the Ordinance Clothing Factory, Avadi, Madras are represented by the petitioner/appellant Union. The workers of the factory are divided into two categories, namely, (i) day workers and (ii) piece-rated workers. The day workers are paid wages in the time scale of Rs. 260-400 on the basis of their actual attendance whereas the piece-rated workers are paid on actual out-put or production calculated on the basis of time required for making the item by multiplying the same by the hourly rate worked out by dividing the mean of the time scale by monthly working hours e.g., Rs. 330 -r- 195 hours = Rs. 1.69 (Rs. 330 being the mean of the time scale of Rs. 260-400 and 195 hours being the total monthly hours).3. The appellant-Union contends that the daily normal working hours of the workmen are 8 during the week except on Saturdays when the working hours are 4-3/4 only. Thus the total working hours during the week comes to 44-% hours. If the piece-r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR681]; (2005)IIILLJ141Mad; (2005)2MLJ132
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 08.12.2003 in dismissing W.P.Nos. 32374 and 32375 of 2002.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The second respondent in both the writ petitions were workmen of the writ petitioner-Mill who filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Vellore. The 2nd respondent in W.P.No.32375 of 2002 viz., D. Krishnan in his application stated that he was working in the writ petitioner -Mill from 19.02.1979, and he was promoted as Time Keeper during the year 1982. He was deputed to work as Manager of the Canteen from 10.02.1996. He alleged that he used to work normally from 6 am to 6 pm, and he worked overtime for 1298 1/2 hours between 15.02.1996 to 31.05.1997 as detailed in the annexure to his application. He has relied on the punching cards available with the management to prove his claim. It was all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)IILLJ26Kant
Hegde, J. 1. These are applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution. They arise from the decision of the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Bijapur, in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 on his file. The said learned magistrate was constituted as the 'authority' under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act to hear and decide all claims arising under Ss. 12 and 14 of the Act in the district of Bijapur. He will be hereinafter referred to as the 'authority.' 2. Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 11 and 14 of 1959 were disposed of by one common order. That order was assailed on various grounds which will be set out presently. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case material for our present purpose are these. The respondents are borne on the staff of the Bijapur Municipal Borough. They work in the octroi department of that borough. They claimed overtime allowance under the provisions of the Act from 1 April, 1955 to 31 March, 1958. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC1034; (1985)2CompLJ162(SC); [1985(50)FLR477]; (1985)IILLJ33SC; 1985(1)SCALE592; (1985)3SCC103; [1985]3SCR491; 1985(17)LC542(SC)
1. What is the rate of overtime allowance admissible to the employees of the two appellants working their establishments situated in the State of Tamil Nadu is the only question raised in these appeals by special leave2. M/s. Philips India Ltd the appellant in the first batch of appeals-a company incorporated under the Companies Act has an establishment in the State of Tamil Nadu. This establishment is governed by The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). According to the practice followed by the company, the employees of the establishment had to render service for 39 hours a week, made up of 7 hours per day from Monday to Friday and 4 hours on Saturday. Effective from March 29, 1985, when the company switched over to five days week, it still retained the total number of working hours per week at 39 by extending the working hours from Monday to Thursday at 7-3/4 hours and 8 hours on Friday. Thus the total working hours per week remained constant at 39. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom54; (1962)64BOMLR676; [1962(5)FLR435]; ILR1962Bom830
Ghitale, J.1. These are applications against the decision by he Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), on applications submitted by several employees of he Central Railway. The employees applied to the Authority alleging that they worked for 51 hours a week, although according to the provisions and rules framed under the said Act they were required to work only for 48 hours during a week; thus they have worked overtime for three hours per week, and hence they were entitled to extra wages payable as per rules framed under the said Act for the overtime work done by tem during the period beginning with 1-4-1952 upto the date of the applications. It is common ground that the employees are monthly rated employees, and that they are workers in a scheduled employment.2. These applications were opposed by the Central Railway on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain claims prior to 1957, and that the Minimum Wa...
Tag this Judgment!