TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of all the rival contentions that were urged before the Central Government Labour Court Bombay, whose decision rendered on December 31, 1971 is challenged in this appeal. Briefly stated the admitted facts are: The India Security Press, Nasik is a very big establishment of the Central Government headed by the General Manager, who is also known as Master, India Security Press. Apart from administrative offices it has a factory. The Press has four wings, namely, (a) the stamp press, (b) currency note press, (c) new currency note press and (d) central stamp stores. There are various categories of workers who have been classified into two groups such as (1) employees working in the administrative offices and (2) those working in the factory. The 78 respondents, belonging to all the four wings, have been employees working in the factory (of these, R-1 to R-3 are Chief Inspectors (Control); R-4 to R-36 are Inspectors (Control); R-37 R-38 are Senior Supervisors; R- 39 to R-52 are Supervisors; R-53 to R-77 are Junior Supervisors and R-78 is a Store Keeper). These 78 Respondents filed an application against the Appellants before the Central Government Labour Court, Bombay under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was an industrial employee, i.e. 'a workman' within the meaning of s. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such their application under s. 33C (2) of that Act was not maintainable. The Central Government Labour Court, Bombay negatived the first two contentions in view of the decision of this Court in the case of B.P. Hira v. C.M. Pradhan (supra) and as regards the third contention on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, it came to the conclusion that all respondents holding the posts of Chief Inspectors (Control) (R-1 to R-3), Inspectors (Control) (R-4 to R-36), Junior Supervisors (R-53 to R-57) and Store Keeper (R-78) having regard to the nature of duties and functions performed by them were industrial employees i e. workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such were entitled to the relief claimed by them but as regards the respondents who were holding the posts of Senior Supervisors (R-37 and R-38) and Supervisors (R-39 to R-5) not being workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act were not entitled to the relief claimed, of course, they were denied the relief only for the period during which they were holding tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... management in factories:- Manager Assistant Manager Departmental Heads and Assistants .Head Store Keepers and Assistants Technical Experts. Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 runs thus: 70. Persons employed in factory to be governed by Factories Act and not by this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to a factory and the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Act, apply to all persons employed in and in connection with a factory: Provided that, where any shop or commercial establishment situate within the precincts of a factory is not connected with the manufacturing process of the factory the provisions of this Act shall apply to it: Provided further that, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 to any shop or commercial establishment situate within the precincts of a factory and on the application of that Act to such shop or commercial establishment, the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to it. Counsel for the appellants urged that the respondents, though employed in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es under sec. 59 read with sec. 70 and this Court upheld the view of the Authority and confirmed its decision. The Court's view on the proper construction of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 has been succinctly summarized in the second head note, which appears at page 137 of the report, which runs thus: On a proper construction of s. 70 of the Act it is clear that the first part of the section excludes a factory and its employees from the operation of the Act; but the second part makes the relevant provisions of the Factories Act applicable to them. The non- obstante clause in the section shows that the employees in a factory, although they might not be workers within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act, are entitled to claim overtime wages as provided for by that Act. Apart from the fact that the decision is binding on us, we are in respectful agreement with the construction placed by it on s. 70 of the Act. The first contention has, therefore, to be rejected. Counsel for the appellants next urged that the effect of s. 70 as indicated by the aforesaid decision is that it makes the provisions of the Factories Act applicable to all persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to a factory notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in it, it must have the effect of excluding the operation of the exemption provisions. Just as because of the non-obstante clause the Act is applicable even to employees in the factory who might not be 'workers' under sec. 2(1), the same non-obstante clause will keep away the applicability of exemption provisions qua all those working in the factory. The Labour Court, in our view, was, therefore, right in taking the view that because of the non-obstante clause s. 64 read with Rule 100 itself would not apply to the respondents and they would be entitled to claim overtime wages under s. 59 of that Act read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that if such construction was placed on s. 70 it will lead to an anomalous situation that even employees of a factory occupying positions of a Manager or a General Manager would become entitled to overtime wages which could not have been the intention of the State Legislature, but that, in our view, is a matter of the State Legislature and not for the Court but it must be pointed out that since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
