SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. ETC versus VIJAY D. KASBE AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 18-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 246
246
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF
INDIA LTD. & ORS. ETC.
v.
VIJAY D. KASBE AND ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2911-2920 of 2023)
APRIL 18, 2023
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
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
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF
INDIA LTD. v. VIJAY D. KASBE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
time when they were Central

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