“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CANNOT CLAIM DOUBLE OVERTIME ALLOWANCE AS PER THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948 IF THE SERVICE RULES DO NOT PROVIDE FOR IT”
In this case the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and the Bombay High Court had held that the employees working as Supervisors with the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) under the Ministry of Finance were entitled for Double Over Time Allowance.
Aggrieved of the above order passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, SPMCIL challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to whether employees working as supervisors were entitled to double overtime allowance as per Section 59(1) of the Factories Act?
The view of the Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the persons in public service who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the time in accordance with Rule 11 of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (‘FRSR’).
Therefore as per above Rule, there was actually no scope for employees to seek payment of Double Over Time Allowance.
It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Tribunal did not appreciated those Rules, and the distinction between employment in a factory and employment in Government service despite it was contended by the Union of India as a specific issue in their counter affidavit before the Tribunal.
The Bench stated that the claim of the employees before the Tribunal was not based on any statutory rule but based entirely upon Section 59(1) of the Factories Act.
That the persons who were neither civil post holder nor in the civil services of the State and were only governed by the Factories Act may be made to work for 6 days in a week with certain limitations as to weekly hours under Section 51, weekly holidays under Section 52, daily hours under Section 54, etc but they do not enjoy the benefit of automatic wage revision through periodic Pay Commissions like those in Government service.
The Bench stated that the High Court erred in holding that the performance of certain functions, such as setting right malfunctioning of feeder, side-lay, double-sheet detector, photocell, etc., to ensure uninterrupted running of the machinery were manual functions.
It was emphasized by the Hob’ble Supreme Court that the appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State was one of a status and that it was not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations.
The Court stated that neither the Tribunal not the High Court considered the distinction between persons in Government service and those in private service and the effect of the statutory rules upon the conditions of service of the employees, including their liability to work for extra hours.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court with the above observation allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court which had held that the employees were entitled to overtime benefits as per the Factories Act.
***
