Service Law – Government servants – Claim of Over Time Allowance u/s.59(1), Factories Act – Denial of – Held: Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued u/Article 309 or its proviso – Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, 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 the present case, the claim of the respondentsarose at the time when they were Central Government servants – Thus, the respondents who were holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the State at the relevant time, could not have claimed the benefits of the provisions of Chapter VI of the 1948 Act, dehors the service rules – Orders of the Tribunal and the High Court unsustainable – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Factories Act 1948 – Chapter VI – s.59(1) – Constitution of India – Article 309, 313 – Fundamental Rules and the Supplementary Rules 1922 – r. 11.
Factories Act 1948 – Chapter VI – s.64 – Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 – r.100 – Held: Admittedly, the State Government is conferred with the power u/s.64(1) to make exempting Rules – In exercise of the power so conferred, the State of Maharashtra framed r.100 wherein the post of Supervisor is included in r.100, as a post exempted from the application of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act – Also, the chart of duties indicated in the ACRs does not show that the respondents are required to perform manual labour or clerical work as a regular part of their duties – 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, are manual functions.
Constitution of India – Articles 226/227, 136 – Findings of fact recorded by Tribunal, interference with – Held: Normally, the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction u/Art.226/227 and Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction u/Art.136, will not be inclined to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by a Tribunal – However, in the present case, the Central Administrative Tribunal reached diametrically opposite findings of fact, in two different sets of cases filed by employees holding similar supervisory posts, both of which cannot co-exist.
Service Law – Persons in the civil services of the Union/State, persons holding civil posts under the Union/State – Service matter dispute including claim for allowances raised before Administrative Tribunal – Duty of the Tribunal – Discussed – Constitution of India –Article 309, proviso to Art.309 – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – ss.3(q), 28.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – Factories Act 1948 – s.2(l)– Held: Definition of “workman” in s.2(s) of the 1947 Act specifically excludes persons employed in a supervisory capacity – But, such an exclusion is not there in the definition of the very same word “worker” in s.2(l) of the 1948 Act.
Tribunals/Courts – Adjudicating dispute relating to conditions of service of an employee – Three different categories of employment enumerated – Held: Court/Tribunal should keep in mind the different parameters applicable to the three different categories of employment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The claim of the respondents for payment of Double Over Time Allowance arose entirely during the period from 1988 to 2005. Since the ‘Corporation’ was incorporated only on 13.1.2006 and all the nine production units coming under the control of the Currency and Coinage Division of the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India were transferred to the Corporation only with effect from 10.2.2006, the claim of the respondents obviously arose at the time when they were Central Government servants. In other words, their claim should be considered to have arisen only in relation to “service matters” of persons appointed to “a service in connection with the affairs of the Union” or in relation to “holders of civil post.” The definition of the expression “service matters”, is provided in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is seen from sub-clause (i) of clause (q) of Section 3 extracted above that any issue relating to remuneration including allowances, is a service matter. The respondents herein, at least during the period from 1988 till the year 2006, were either holders of civil posts under the Union or appointed to the civil services of the Union. This is why the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, for the adjudication of their service matter. [Paras 16-19][257-C-E; 258-C-D]
1.2 Primarily, the terms and conditions of service of persons in the civil services of the Union or the State and persons holding civil posts under the Union or the State, are regulated either by the Acts of the appropriate Legislature passed in terms of Article
309 or by the Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, whenever a dispute relating to a service matter, which includes a claim for allowances, is raised before the Administrative Tribunal, the primary duty of the Tribunal is to see what is provided by the relevant Act issued under the main part of Article 309 or the Rules issued under the Proviso to Article 309. Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309 or its proviso. In fact, the history of civil service in India is more than a century old and there were Rules in force, such as the Fundamental Rules and the Supplementary Rules (FRSR) issued way back in the year 1922, with effect from 1.1.1922. Article 313 of the Constitution declares that until other provision is made under the Constitution, all the laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution and applicable to any public service or post, shall continue in force. This is why the Fundamental Rules of the year 1922 continue to apply even now, to the holders of civil posts and those in the civil services of the Union or the State. [Paras 2022][258-E-H; 259-A-B]
1.3 Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, 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 the light of the above Rule, there was actually no scope for the respondents to seek payment of Double Over Time Allowance. No benefit can be claimed by anyone dehors the statutory rules. Unfortunately, the Central Administrative Tribunal completely lost sight of those Rules, and the distinction between employment in a factory and employment in Government service. [Paras 24, 25][259-E, G-H; 260-A]
1.4 Persons who are not holders of civil posts nor in the civil services of the State but who are governed only by the 1948 Act, may be made to work for six 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. Workers covered by Factories Act do not enjoy the benefit of automatic wage revision through periodic Pay Commissions like those in Government service. Persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court, in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds. Admittedly, the State Government is conferred with the power under Section 64(1) to make exempting Rules. In exercise of the power so conferred, the State of Maharashtra has framed Rule
100. Apparently, the post of Supervisor is included in Rule 100, as a post exempted from the application of the provisions of Chapter VI. The chart of duties indicated in the ACRs does not show that the respondents are required to perform manual labour or clerical work as a regular part of their duties. The High Court fell into an error 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, are manual functions. In any case, the respondents, who are holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the State till the year 2006, could not have claimed the benefits of the provisions of Chapter VI of the 1948 Act, dehors the service rules. The Tribunal as well as the High Court did not consider 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 respondents, including their liability to work for extra hours. The Tribunal reached diametrically opposite findings of fact in respect of persons holding similar supervisory posts. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. However, the appellants are not to effect any recovery from those to whom payments have already been made. [Paras 27-29, 40 and 41][260-C-E; 261-E, G-H; 262-A-B; 263-H; 264A-C] Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell Management Staff Association & Ors.1970 (3) SCC 378 : [1971] 2 SCR
758 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.