SHRI B. P. HIRA, WORKS MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY, PAREL, BOMBAY ETC versus SHRI C. M. PRADHAN ETC.

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 08-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
137 
SHRI B. P. HIRA, WORKS MANAGER, 
CENTRAL RAILWAY, PAREL, BOMBAY E1:C. 
v. 
SHRI C. M. PRADHAN ETC. 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) 
Overtime Wages-Claim by employees in railway factory-
Validity-F actories Act, z948 (LXIII of z948), ss. z(l), 59-The 
Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, z948 (Bom. 79 of z948). 
SS, 4, 70. 
These appeals by special leave arose from applications made 
by the respondents, who were employed as timekeepers in the 
time office of the Central Railway Workshop and Factory, Parel, 
Bombay, claiming payment of overtime wages under the Payment 
of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936). The case of the respondents was 
that they were workers within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the 
Factories Act, 1948 (LXIII of 1948) and as such were entitled 
to overtime wages under s. 59 of the said Act. Alternatively, 
they urged that even if they. were not workers within the mean. 
ing of s. 2(1) of the said Act, they would nevertheless be entitled 
to overtime wages under the s. 59 by reason of s. 70 of .the 
Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Born. 79 of 1948). 
The validity of the claim on both the grounds was disputed by 
the appellant. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 
found that only four of the respondents, who were required to do 
the work of progress timekeepers, could claim the status of 
workers within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act and 
the rest were merely employees of the workshop, but the 
Authority accepted the alternative case made by the respond-
ents and directed the appellant to file a statement showing the 
overtime wages due to each of the respondents and ordered it to 
pay the same. 
Held, that the Authority was right in the view that fr took 
of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, and 
its decision must be affirmed. 
On a proper construction of s. 70 of the Act it is clear that 
the first part of the section excludes a factory and its employees 
from the operation of the Act ; but the second part makes the 
relevant provisions of the Factories Act applicable to them. The 
non-obstante clause in the section shows that the employees in a 
factory, although they might not be workers within the meaning 
of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act, are entitled to claim overtime 
wages as provided for by that Act. 
It is not correct to say that s. 4 of the Bombay Shops and 
Establishments Act, 1948, has the effect of excluding the opera-
tion of s. 70 of the Act. Section 4 applies only to establish· 
ments and not to factories; but even if it applied, to factories 
18 
z959 
Moy 8. 
Z9$9 
B. P. Hira 
v. 
C. M. PradhaH 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
that cannot materially affect the application of s. 70 which is 
intended to operate not withstanding the other provisions of the 
Act. 
Consistently with its policy, the Act, which provides for 
overtime wages for employees in all establishments, provides for 
overtime wages for employees in factories as well by making the 
relevant provisions of the Factories Act applicable to them. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
131 to 304 of 1957. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and 
order dated October 19, 1955 and January 31, 1956, of 
the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Bombay, 
in Applications Nos. 950-961, 963-967, 970-989, 992, 
994-1013, 1015-1016, 1049-1050 and 11510-11511 and 
11513-11517 of 1955 respectively. 
M.G. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, R. Gana-
pathy Iyer and R.H. Dhebar, for the appellants. 
Purshottam Tricumdas and 0. N. Srivastava, for the 
respondents in all the appeals except C. A. No. 186 
of 1957. 
1959. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gaj.,.dragadkar J. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-This group of 174 appeals by. 
special leave arises from the several applications made 
against Mr. B. P. Hira, Works Manager, Central Rail-
way Workshop and Factory, Pa.rel, Bombay (hereafter 
called the appellant) by the employees at the said 
factory (hereafter called the respondents) under the 
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936) claiming 
payment of overtime wages since 1948. All these 
applications were heard by the Payment of Wages 
Authority, Bombay, as companion matters and they 
have been disposed of by a common judgment. The 
main judgment has, however, been delivered by the 
said Authority in the application filed by Mr. C. M. 
Pradhan (hereafter called the respondent) which gives 

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