LexPHILIPS INDIA LTD. versus LABOUR COURT, MADRAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
49t
PHILIPS INDIA LTD.
v.
LABOUR COURT, MADRAS & ORS.
26th March, 1985
[0.A. DESAI AND V. KHALID, JJ.]
The Tamil Nadu Shop< and Establishments Act, 1947, Sections -14(]) amJ
31, interpretation of-Construction of a r statutory prqi·isiOn-Can'!n of c:_on_s~
truction Ex viSceribus actus-Words and phrases-Meaning of'~over tim_e·~,
''no such person,", ''such es_tabUshment", "rate of over.time. wages", o_ccurr(ni
in Section 14(1) and 31-Where the employer prescribes working hours. l~sS
.than _the _maximum permissible. ill .the statute, whether he .i~ obliged to pay .the
'stattitorily. prescribed r.ate .and not .the rates of overtime charges agreed. upon,
}n respect of~o_rk do~e in.excess of the number ofwe~kly working hours pres,
cribed by the employer and upto the lUlmber of statutorily perm.itted week{y
working hours of 48 hOurs.
Under' Secti~n 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishm~nts Act,
1947, ·"n6 persorl employe"- in .any establishment shaU be required o_r
anowe~
to work ·for m·ore th<i.Q ._e_iglit hours in any day forty-eight hours in.·any we~k,
and ·under Sectiori 31 .. , Where any persOn employecl i,n any establishrn~.O~-:~S
~quired ~o work ove~time, he shall be entitled~ in respect _of suc.h -oY'ej:ti~~
work, to _wag~s at_ twic~ the. ordiriary rate of wages;"
·
·
In the establishment of Philips ·India ·Ltd. which Switched over ·io fiVe
·days ·of week, with effect fron:i ·March ·29, 1965 the total nUmb~r of· ·working
.hours· per week· was· flxed at 39 J19urs with. a d8.i1y worl_d_ng ~Jiouf of 7-3/4 houfS
--from -Monday through Thursday and 8 hours ott Friday. ·The · compai:iy' -ats&
.·iDtrodticed ·the rate. of' overtime· payment ai lf iime -the 'ol-dinary wig-es fol-
--Work dorie. over ·and-aboVe the rTiaximum number of working noUfs Per week
. -as well - -Rs· for working -on ·ho1idayS.
·This rate ·was admisSible fOf overtlffi"e
--'Work don_e beyond .39 ho1:1rs per week ·but this was subject jo in important
.. condition that ·whenever the· total working ·hours exceed ~ither 8 hours per qay
or 48 hours per week,· the employees were entitled to over time 3.t tWice the
ordinary wages as mandated by Section 31 Or the Act.
In the establishment
of the State Bank of India which is·governed by ihe Desai Award, the daily
working hours from Monday to Friday was 6-1/2 hours a day arid 4 hours
on Saturday. tota1Iing a weekly 36-1/2 hours. The.rate.of overtime allowance
was 1-1/2 times the wages for every quarter of an hour of overtime work done
: .for -which P8:yment h~ve '.lo .b~ m~de ..
c
E
B
.·~
1.H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19~5] 3 S.C.R.
Claim petitions were filed by the employers of Philips India Ltd., and
the State Bank of India before different Labour Courts under Section 33(c)(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947· inviting the Labour Court to compute the
monetary benefits in respect of overtime allowance for the work done beyond
the prescribed hours of work
pe~, week in terms of section 31 of the Act,
Their contention was that they were entitled to overtime wages at double the
rate of ordinary wages for work done in excess of 39 hours/36-1/2 hours a
week.
Though the matters were before tWo operate Labour Courts and were
decided at different intervals, both the Labour Courts held that Section 14 of
the Act does not prescribe number of working hours per day but it mere1y
specified maximum number of working hours that can be introduced by an
employer in an establishment governed by the Act.
But once the employer
chooses to prescribe working hours per day or total number of working hours
per week Jess than permissible under section 14, the rate of overtime allowance
as pi'escribed in section 31 would be applicable to the workmen notwithstariding
the fact that the prescribed nun1ber
of working· hours per day Or
total number of work.ing hours per week were less
than the maximum
which · the statute
permitted.
Accordingly, both
the
Labour
Court$
computed the monetarY benefits by granting overtime allowance at the
rate of double the ordinary wages and the difference between what was p3.id by
th~ employer in each case at 1·1/2 times the ordinary wages and what becam·e
pa)table ·as pet the Courts order was di re-cted to be paid to each employee, ..
Aggrieved thereby, the company and the Bank filed in aJI five writ
petitions questioning the correctness of the said decision.
Due to a conflict
of opinion in the matter of interpretationExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.