Ghanshyam Lal Goyal and Others vs The Punjab State Electricity Board and Others

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.—The petitioners were working as Sub Station Attendants with respondent No. 1 and posted under respondent No. 2. During the period from 1991 to 1992, the petitioners were made to work in two shifts in a day for maintaining proper power supply. Even holidays and weekly rests were not allowed to the petitioners. They were not granted any leave on any account from July 1991 to March 1992. The petitioners claim that they were made to work over time for 512, 540 and 492 hours respectively for three quarters beginning from July 1991 to March 1992. Despite the fact that they had worked for about 500 hours in each of the three quarters, they were offered over time allowance for 150 hours only i.e. 50 hours per quarter. The petitioners submitted representations about their claims, but representations of petitioners were not acceded. They filed Civil Writ Petition No. 594 of 1993, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order in respect of the claims of the petitioners for over time allowance. Pursuant to the directions, order dated 31.05.1994 (Annexure P10) was passed. The claim of petitioners has been declined. But it has been admitted that the petitioner No. 1 along with two other employees who were petitioners in CWP No. 594 of 1993 had worked over time for 352, 342 and 320 hours respectively in each quarter. It has been stated that in terms of the provisions of the Factories Act (for short ''the Act''), overtime allowance for 50 hours only per quarter is permissible and, therefore, the over time allowance granted to the petitioners was justified and their claim for over time allowance for the period beyond 50 hours was rightly declined.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 31.05.1994 (Annexure P-10) passed by Respondent No. 4 and for directions to the respondents to grant the petitioners overtime allowance for the period they had actually worked in the three quarters during the period from July 1991 to March 1992, along with interest.

The only defence of the respondents in support of the impugned order is that as per the Factories Act, over time allowance up to 50 hours only, in each quarter, is permissible. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 64 of the said Act, which is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"Section 64-Power to make exempting Rules

(1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) In making rules under this Section, the (State Government) shall not exceed, except in respect of exemption under clauses (a) of sub-section (2), the following limits of work inclusive of over time:-

(i) the total number of hours of work in any day shall not exceed ten;

(ii) the spread over, inclusive of intervals for rest, shall not exceed twelve hours in any one day;

Provided that the State Government may in respect of any or all of the categories of workers referred to in clause (d) of Sub-section (2), make rules prescribing the circumstances in which any conditions subject to which, the restrictions imposed by clause (i) and clause (ii) shall not apply in order to enable a shift worker to work the whole or part of a subsequent shift in the absence of a worker who has failed to report for duty;

(iii) the total number of hours of work in a week, including over time, shall not exceed sixty;

(iv) the total number of hours of over time shall not exceed fifty for any one quarter.

Explanation .-"Quarter" means a period of three consecutive months beginning on the 1st of January, the 1st of April, 1st of July or the 1st of October."

Ld. Counsel for the respondents further contends that the claim of the petitioners that they were made to work for over-time for 512, 540 and 492 hours respectively for three quarters has been specifically denied in paras No. 5 and 6 of the written statement.

This contention of the Ld. Counsel cannot be accepted. The denial of the averments of the petitioners that they had worked for 512, 540 and 492 hours respectively for three quarters in para No. 5 and 6 of the written statement cannot be accepted in the face of the fact that while disposing of the representation vide the impugned order (Annexure P-10) it has been specifically admitted by the respondents that the petitioners had worked over-time for 352, 342 and 320 hours respectively in each quarter. Further, the reliance on the provisions of the Act to deny the payment for the actual number of over-time hours can also not be sustained because the Act is a beneficial legislation to safeguard the interest of the employees. It has only prescribed the limits of the number of hours and days that an employee can be asked to work. However, if a particular employee actually works beyond the stipulated time as prescribed in the Act, then he cannot be denied compensation/wages for the same.

Similar was the question before the Gauhati High Court in Nepal Chandra Dass v. State of Tripura and others, 2008 Labour and Industrial Cases 992, wherein, while allowing the petition of the employees, it was observed that the provisions of Section 64 of the Factories Act are enacted to give protection from over exploitation of an employee. Engaging persons for extra hours of work beyond a certain limit is prohibited. In case of breach of the said provisions, appropriate proceedings may be drawn up against an employer, but the said provisions cannot be resorted to deny wages for overtime services obtained from an employee. Consequently, the Civil Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the wages/dues for the overtime work performed by them as finds mention in order Annexure P-10. The amount be calculated and paid to the petitioners with simple interest @ 6% p.a. within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.