MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HATTA versus BHAGAT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 05-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' . . 
,,, 
,... 
': 
-, 
-:·"' 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HATTA 
l 
v. 
BHAGAT SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
--< 
Labour Law: 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948: 
S. 14-0vertime-Payment o/-Municipal employees being paid much 
more than the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act-Their pay scale 
fixed under the relevant Service Rules applicable to the Municipality-Claim 
for overtime-Held, s.14 has no application to them-It clearly provides for 
payment of overtime only to those employees who are getting minimum rate 
;l._ 
of wages under the Act and not to those getting better wages under other 
statutory Rules-Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Scales of Pay and 
Allowances) Rules, 1967-
Service Law : 
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Scales of Pay and Allowances) 
Rules, 1967: 
Municipal Coimcil-Moharrirslpeons-C/aim for overtime uls 14 of 
Minimum wages Act-Filing application uls 22 of the Act-Held, their 
application is misconceived-Overtime u/s 14 is payable to those employees 
~ 
who are getting a minimum rate of wages as prescribed under the Act-Since 
y 
the employees are getting much more and that too under the Rules, s.14 has 
no application to them-Minimum Wages Act, 1948-ss.14 and 22-
Municipality-Employees·-Claiming overtime under Minimum wages Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4826 of 
1991. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.91 of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court in M.P. No. 2068of1983. 
Ashok K. Singh for S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
Amitabh Verma for Ashok Mathur for the Respondents. 
699 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) l S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
T-' 
The respondents, who are Moharrirs/peons working with the appellant 
... 
Municipal Council, Hatta, filed an application under Section 22 of the Minimum 
Wages Act, 1948, before the Competent Authority (Labour Court) under the 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for payment of overtime on the ground that they 
B were working for 4 additional hours everyday. Their application for the period 
1.2.82 to 31.3.83 has been allowed and the Writ Petition which was filed by 
r-
the appellant before the High Court has been dismissed. 
The respondents who are employees of the appellant Municipal Council 
are governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. 
__.., 
c Under Section 95 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, the State 
C· 
Government is entitled, inter alia, to make rules in respect of scale of pay and 
all allowances by whatever name called and other service conditions of 
Municipal Employees. Pursuant to the power so vested, the Madhya Pradesh 
Municipal Services (Scales of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967, have been 
D framed. The pay scale ofMoharrirs is fixed at Rs. 70-2-80-2 112-100-EB-4-120. 
):..' 
There is no provision under these Rules for payment of any overtime allowance. 
The respondents contended that they would be entitled to overtime 
' • 
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act. 
E 
According to them, service with Local Authority is one of the employment 
covered by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Now, the minimum wages which 
are prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which would be applicable 
to the respondents are Rs. 50 per month. Admittedly, the respondents are 
getting wages above the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum 
Wages Act, 1948. The short question is whether Section 14 of the Minimum 
.. ; 
F Wages Act, 1948 would apply to such persons. Section 14(1) which is relevant 
... 
for the present purposes is as follow: 
'( 
Section 14 : 
G 
"Overtime - ( 1) Where an employee, whose minimum rate of wages is 
fixed under this Act by the hour, by the day or by such a longer wage 
period as may be prescribed, works on any day in excess of the 
-t-
number of hours constituting a normal working day, the employer 
shall pay him for every hour or for part of an hour so worked in excess 
at the overtime rate fixed under this Act or under any law of the 
H 
appropriate Government for the time being in force, whichever is 
. ' 
y 
' 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HATTA v. BHAGAT SINGH 
701 
higher." 
There is also an amendment to Section 14 by addition of sub-section 
(la) under the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) 
Act, 1961 being Act 23of1961. Sub-section (la) which is inserted in Section 
A 
14 entitles the State Government by Notificati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.