This significant decision was made by a bench made up of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal as they considered whether supervisors at the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India, a business under the Ministry of Finance in charge of producing currency notes, were eligible for double overtime pay under Chapter VI of the Factories Act 1948.
Issue to think about Whether Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India personnel who served in supervisory roles had access to double overtime pay under Section 59(1) of the Factories Act?
According to the Bench, Rule 11 of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (‘FRSR’) requires people working in the public sector who hold civil posts or who are employed by the Union, the Union, or the State to always be available to the government, unlike those who work in factories and industrial establishments. There was actually no way for the responders to request payment of Double Over Time Allowance in light of the aforementioned Rule. Thus, anyone outside the scope of the law could not claim any benefit.
The Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India and others have appealed a common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which held that even those employees working as Supervisors are entitled to Double Over Time Allowance. This case has a checkered history with fortunes fluctuating from one side to the other. In 1988, an order was issued by the Special Officer (Currency & Coinage), Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, directing that the shop-floor and the ministerial staff, falling under the category of non-gazetted supervisory staff, would be compensated for extended hours of work at certain rates. During the pendency of the writ petitions, A.K. Biswas and 20 others filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court.
The High Court found that the employees were similarly placed and that they were entitled to the same benefits as given to the other employees. The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by A.K. Biswas and others, granting relief only to those employees who had not compromised the matter with the Management. The Union of India argued that under Section 64(1) of the 1948 Act, the State Government was entitled to make Rules exempting the application of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act to certain categories of workers. The Central Administrative Tribunal reached two diametrically opposite findings of fact in two different sets of cases filed by employees who were identically placed and discharging identical duties and responsibilities.
The claim of the respondents for payment of Double Over Time Allowance arose during the period from 1988 to 2005, when they were Central Government servants. The Central Administrative Tribunal failed to recognize the distinction between employment in a factory and employment in Government service, despite the Union of India raising this as a specific issue. The 1948 Factories Act allows workers to work for six days in a week, but those holding civil posts or in the civil services enjoy certain privileges. Rule 100 exempts the post of Supervisor from Chapter VI, but the Tribunal has reached different conclusions. The definition of “workman” in Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act excludes persons employed in a supervisory capacity.
Despite the Union of India mentioning this as a specific issue in its counter affidavit before the Tribunal, the Court observed that the Tribunal utterly lost sight of those Rules and the distinction between employment in a factory and employment in government service.
The Court ruled that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had taken into account the distinction between those working for the government and those working for private companies or how the legislative rules affected the respondents’ working conditions, including their obligation to put in overtime.
Concluding remarks
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that government employees are not entitled to claim overtime allowances under the Factories Act, which regulates the working conditions in factories. This ruling has significant implications for the payment of overtime allowances to government employees in India, as it clarifies the scope of the Factories Act and its applicability to government employees. It could also have wider implications for labor laws in India.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SARAH GARIMA TIGGA OF SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
