Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR7; [2002(95)FLR559]; 2002(4)MhLj56
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Pune Municipal Corporation has challenged the common order dated 25-1-1994 passed by the Labour Court in the applications filed by various employees, individually, as reflected in the title of the common order, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming wages for the period for the days i.e. 22nd March, 1986, 23rd March, 1986, 26th March, 1986 and 28th March, 1986 at double the rate as over time wages for the work done on those days. According to the employees, those days were weekly holidays for them but they had worked on those days and, therefore, they were entitled to get wages at double the rate. The employees have given computation of the total claim which is mentioned in the annexure to the impugned order on page 33 of the paper book. The total number of claimants is 161 who have claimed overtime wages for the aforesaid days. The respondent herein is one of them. The petitioners filed their written statement to oppose the claims of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 76(1993)CLT893; [1994(68)FLR666]; (1994)IILLJ19Ori
G.B. Patnaik, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether 'over-time allowance' paid to employees would be included in the definition of 'wages' in Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for the purpose of the employer's contribution on the same. On this question there is a sharp cleavage of opinion between the High Courts of India, the Calcutta, Karnataka and Rajasthan High Courts having taken the view that the said payment would not be included in the definition of 'wages', whereas the Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Kerala and Delhi High Courts having taken the view that the said payment would be included in the definition of 'wages'. There has been no authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the question though there has been some observation in some incidental matters and so far as this Court is concerned, there has been no decision at all and, therefore, it is necessary to have an in-depth examination of the point in issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)3GLR2515
K.M. Mehta, J.1. Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), petitioner, have filed present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 4th March, 1986, passed by the Industrial Tribunal ('the tribunal' for short), Ahmedabad in Reference (I.T.) No.693 of 1980.1.1 The tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has held that, as regards demand for fixation of working hours and overtime, it would be fair enough if the workmen of the Corporation are given these benefits on the same lines as in the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). The tribunal also held that the benefits of working hours of the workmen in the tube wells shall be on same limes as in the said Rules particularly Rule 24. The tribunal further held that the overtime shall be paid at double the rates of wages on the same lines as provided under the said Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)IILLJ118Mad; (1971)IIMLJ208
Ismail, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the second respondent herein, the Central Government Labour Court, Madras, on petitions filed by the respective first respondent in these writ petitions under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The facts are not really in controversy. The question for determination also lies in a very narrow compass. However, source of rights and obligations of the parties was sought to be traced with reference to several awards passed, pursuant to provisions contained in the Act. The first respondent in the respective writ petitions filed petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Act claiming overtime wages from the dates on which they were entertained by the petitioner bank as watchmen in several branch offices. The basis on which the claim was made, as contained in the respective claim statements, can be realised from the following passage occurring in the claim statements:The appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Facts: 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It had, posted by the Government, a contingent of officers one Circle Inspector, one Inspector, two Preventive Officers and eight Guards to supervise the day-to-day functioning of the petitioner factory. Following Section 14 of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity) read with Rule 14 of the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1968 (Part-I) ('the Rules' for brevity), the Government has deployed the supervisory staff to ensure that there is no evasion of the duty on the manufacturer's part. 2. As per the statutory mechanism, the petitioner continued to pay to the said supervisory staff the salary and allowances. It is the specific case of the petitioner that from November 2010, the Circle Inspector, heading the supervisory staff and being the competent authority to raise the necessary bills for payment of salary and other allowances by the petitioner, did not make any demand for the overtime allowance due for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT320
ORDERB.K. Somasekhara, J.1. The common Award of Respondent No. 2, the III Labour Court, Hyderabad (Sri Syed Abdullah) dated 18-8-1993 passed in M.P. Nos. 179, 173, 176, 175, 172 and 174 of 1992 in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner is the subject and object of assail in all the writ petitions. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are common in all the writ petitions. The six writ petitions with common questions comprise for disposal in this common judgment. The petitioner is Rajendranagar Municipality. Respondent No. 1 in each of the cases claiming to be a worker/workman of the petitioner, laid a claim for recovery of over-time allowance under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was resisted by the petitioner, but allowed in the Award. The relevant particulars of the parties, the claim etc., are tabulated hereunder:SI. W.P. No. & W.P.M.P. No. Corresponding Name of Period ClaimNo. petitioner before job held of claim Labour Court (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)3GLR835; (1997)ILLJ216Guj
1. This Special Civil Application is directed against an order dated May 16, 1994 passed by the Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No. 2082 of 1990 whereby the claim of the present respondent Natvarlal Amrutlal Shah was allowed with the direction to the E.S.I. Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 2,06,068/- to him as overtime dues for the period from July 21, 1973 to August 7, 1986 in respect of which the recovery application was filed on August 17, 1990. 2. On March 30, 1995 while issuing the Rule in this matter ad interim relief in terms of para 12(C)(1) was granted by the Court on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,06,068/- as directed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in this Court within six weeks. 3. Civil Application No. 2534 of 1995 has been moved by the present respondent on September 26, 1995 for vacating ad interim relief and for direction to withdraw the amount deposited by the E.S.I. Corporation in pursuance of the order dated March 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1978)19GLR253
S. Obul Reddi, C.J.1. The short and interesting question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a 'worker' as defined under the Factories Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is entitled to extra wages, under Section 59 of the Act and Regulation 55 of the Gujarat State Transport Employees' Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the, Regulations') even when the worker is absent on tour on duty and receives travelling and daily allowances.2. The relevant facts necessary for determination of the question involved are these. The respondent worker is employed as a Helper in the antral Stores of the petitioner. Director of Stores, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and is working in that capacity for over eleven years. The respondent-worker was directed to proceed to Depodi-Poona for official work under the order of the Controller of Stores of the Corporation dated April 30,1974 with a direction to return to the headquarters after the completio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom260; (1962)64BOMLR135; [1962(4)FLR294]; (1962)ILLJ464Bom
Mody, J.(1) This is a petition for an appropriate writ or direction under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 18th February 1961, dismissing the petitioner's application passed by the first responder's who is the appropriate authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner is a workman and employee of the second respondents who are an engineering company. The petitioner is employed in the factory of the second respondents, the second respondents being a public limited company. The working hours of the petitioner as also of the other employees of the second respondent working in the factory of the second respondents are governed by the Indian Factories Act, 1948, Under the Factories Act the ordinary working hours at all relevant times were nine hours per day and forty-eight hours per week. The petitioner and the other employees of the second respondents being dissatisfied with the rates of wages and dearness allowance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)IILLJ471Bom; 1980MhLJ658
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner who is in employment of the respondent No. 1 company made a claim under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), claiming overtime wages from the employer on the footing that he was entitled to claim overtime wages at the rate of one and a half times the rate of daily wages in respect of the entire number of hours of work in excess of 36 hours per week which constituted his normal working hours in a week. It was not in dispute before the Labour Court that the normal working hours of the petitioner in a week were 36. The Labour Court has taken the view that the petitioner was entitled to overtime wages only for the number of hours in excess of 48 hours a week. On that basis the claim made by the petitioner was granted to a limited extent in respect of 47 hours of overtime work done in November, 1972 and January and March, 1973 only.2. The petitioner's contention in this petition which is directed at the order of t...
Tag this Judgment!