Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Overtime Allowance on Revised Pay Scales - Computation Must Be Based on Revised Pay Scales Under Section 59 of Factories Act, 1948

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 127
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks and later promoted as Upper Division Clerks at the Naval Armament Depot, were posted to the time keeping section on rotation basis for fixed tenure of three years. In that section, they were required to work overtime exceeding 48 hours per week or 9 hours per day. They claimed overtime allowance at twice their ordinary rate of wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948. The respondents did not dispute their entitlement to overtime allowance but computed it on the basis of prerevised pay scales, relying on an office memorandum dated 1st July, 1998 issued by the Ministry of Defence. The petitioners made representations which were turned down. Aggrieved, they filed Original Application No.446 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed on 6th December, 2006. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging the CAT's order. The legal issue was whether the overtime allowance should be computed on the basis of revised pay scales or prerevised pay scales. The court analyzed Section 59 of the Factories Act, which provides for overtime at twice the ordinary rate of wages. The court held that the ordinary rate of wages must be the current rate applicable to the employee, not a prerevised rate. The office memorandum could not override the statutory provision. The court allowed the petition, set aside the CAT's order, and directed the respondents to compute and pay overtime allowance on the basis of revised pay scales.

Headnote

A) Factories Act - Overtime Allowance - Computation on Revised Pay Scales - Section 59 of Factories Act, 1948 - Petitioners, employed as Upper Division Clerks at Naval Armament Depot, claimed overtime allowance on revised pay scales - Respondents computed allowance on prerevised scales relying on office memorandum dated 1st July, 1998 - Court held that Section 59 mandates overtime at twice ordinary rate of wages, which must be based on current pay scales - Memorandum cannot override statutory provision - Held that petitioners are entitled to overtime allowance on revised pay scales (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to overtime allowance computed on the basis of revised pay scales instead of prerevised pay scales under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th December, 2006, and directed the respondents to compute and pay overtime allowance to the petitioners on the basis of revised pay scales in accordance with Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948

Law Points

  • Overtime allowance must be computed on the basis of revised pay scales
  • not prerevised scales
  • under Section 59 of the Factories Act
  • 1948
  • Office Memorandum dated 1st July
  • 1998 cannot override statutory entitlement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 136

Writ Petition No.4900 of 2007

2018-09-26

A.S. Oka, M.S. Sonak

2018:BHC-AS:26811-DB

Mr. A.I. Bhatkar for the Petitioners

Jitendra Anant Mhatre and ors.

The Union of India and ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing original application for overtime allowance on revised pay scales

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought overtime allowance computed on the basis of revised pay scales under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948

Filing Reason

Respondents computed overtime allowance on prerevised pay scales relying on office memorandum dated 1st July, 1998, despite revision of pay scales

Previous Decisions

Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No.446 of 2005 on 6th December, 2006

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to overtime allowance on the basis of revised pay scales under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that they were entitled to overtime allowance at twice their ordinary rate of wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act, and the ordinary rate must be based on revised pay scales Respondents relied on office memorandum dated 1st July, 1998 to compute overtime on prerevised scales

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, overtime allowance must be computed at twice the ordinary rate of wages, which is the current rate applicable to the employee. An office memorandum cannot override a statutory provision. Therefore, overtime allowance must be based on revised pay scales, not prerevised scales.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 6th December, 2006 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing Original Application No.446 of 2005 instituted by the petitioners seeking overtime allowance on the basis of revised pay scale made applicable to them. The respondents also do not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners for overtime allowance in terms of Section 59 of the Factories Act.

Procedural History

Petitioners filed Original Application No.446 of 2005 before CAT seeking overtime allowance on revised pay scales; CAT dismissed the application on 6th December, 2006; Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4900 of 2007 before Bombay High Court challenging CAT's order; High Court reserved judgment on August 30, 2018 and pronounced on September 26, 2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Factories Act, 1948: Section 59
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Remand in Cross-Case Assault Matter. Appellate Court's Direction to Try Case and Counter Case Together Upheld to Avoid Conflicting Findings Under Section 401 CrPC.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds State in Agricultural Land Tenancy Legislation; Lands Held Under Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code are Local Equivalent of Estate. Article 31A(2)(a) Protects Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) ...