Summary
Supervisors in Government presses and mints, later transferred to the Security Printing and Minting Corporation, claimed double overtime allowance under Section 59(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 for 1988 to 2005. The Central Administrative Tribunal reached opposite findings in two sets of cases on whether they did manual or clerical work so as to fall outside the exemption in Rule 100 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963, and the Bombay High Court upheld the claims. The Supreme Court allowed the Corporation's appeals: the respondents were holders of civil posts under the Union governed by statutory rules under Article 309, including Fundamental Rule 11 placing their whole time at the Government's disposal without additional remuneration, so they could not claim Factories Act benefits dehors the service rules; in any event their duties involved no manual or clerical work.
Issues
- Whether persons employed as Supervisors in Government presses and mints, being holders of civil posts under the Union, are entitled to double overtime allowance under Section 59(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 dehors the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
- Whether such Supervisors are exempted from Chapter VI of the Factories Act by Rule 100 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963, and whether the proviso excluding persons performing manual labour or clerical work applies to them.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(l), 2(m), 59(1) and 64(1), Factories Act, 1948Section 59(1) grants extra wages for overtime to workers; Section 64(1) empowers the State Government to exempt persons holding positions of supervision or management; the definition of 'worker' in Section 2(l), unlike 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, does not exclude supervisors, so the Burmah Shell dominant nature test was not applied. (¶¶ 6, 7, 28, 35, 36, 37)
- Rule 100(1), including item (x) and the proviso, Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963Supervisors are deemed to hold positions of supervision and are exempt from Chapter VI unless required to perform manual labour or clerical work as a regular part of their duties; the chart of duties in the ACRs did not show such work, and setting right malfunctioning machinery is not a manual function. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 32, 33)
- Rule 11, Fundamental Rules, 1922The whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required without claim for additional remuneration, leaving no scope for a claim to double overtime allowance. (¶¶ 22, 24, 25)
- Articles 309 and 313, Constitution of IndiaConditions of service of holders of civil posts are regulated by Acts or rules under Article 309, and pre-Constitution rules such as the Fundamental Rules continue under Article 313; a Tribunal adjudicating a service matter must first see what those rules provide. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Section 3(q), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985A claim for allowances is a 'service matter', which is why the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal rather than a labour forum. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Section 1(6) (as it stood before Amendment Act 41 of 2005), Payment of Wages Act, 1936The Act did not apply to the respondents, whose basic pay exceeded the ceiling, so the proviso to Section 64(1) of the Factories Act could not be pressed into service. (¶¶ 38, 39)
Held
- Appointment to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union is one of status governed by statute or statutory rules under Article 309, not strictly by a contract of service or labour welfare legislation; courts and tribunals must keep in mind the different parameters applicable to statutorily protected employment, purely contractual employment and public service. Under Fundamental Rule 11 the whole time of a Government servant is at the Government's disposal without claim for additional remuneration, so the respondents, who were Government servants until 2006, could not claim double overtime allowance under Chapter VI of the Factories Act dehors the service rules, and the Tribunal erred in losing sight of this distinction. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34)
- The Tribunal reached diametrically opposite findings of fact on whether identically placed Supervisors performed manual or clerical work, findings which cannot co-exist and which therefore warranted interference; the chart of duties in the ACRs does not show such work as a regular part of their duties, and the High Court erred in treating the rectification of malfunctioning machinery as manual work. (¶¶ 10, 31, 32, 33, 40)
- The decision in Burmah Shell does not apply because the definition of 'worker' in Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, unlike Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, does not exclude persons employed in a supervisory capacity; and the proviso to Section 64(1) read with Section 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act is unavailable since that Act did not apply to the respondents. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
Result
Appeals allowed; common order of the Bombay High Court dated 28.06.2018 set aside; the appellants directed not to effect any recovery from employees to whom payments have already been made; no order as to costs.