UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SURESH C. BASKEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 13-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SURESH C. BASKEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 13, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Factolies Act, 1948: Section 59. 
Workmen-Calcutta Mint-Employees in occupation of Govemment 
accommodation-Ove1time allowance-Computation of-lnclusion of no-
tional element of House Rent Allowance in overtime allowance held not 
pennissible-Govemment orders regarding computation of overtime al-
lowance-Held should be read in confonnity with provisions of the Act. 
Words and Phrases : 'Ordinary rate of wages'-:Meaning of-Section 
D 59(2) Fact01ies Act, 1948. 
The question in these appeals is whether the employees- workmen of 
the Government Mint, Alipur, Calcutta who are occupying Government 
accommodation and as such are not being paid House Rent Allowance are 
entitled to compute the overtime allowance payable to them after taking 
E 
into account notionally the element of house rent allowance. 
F 
Following its earlier decision in O.A. No. 13 of 1987 decided on April 
17, 1990 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta answered the ques-
tion in favour of the employees. Accordingly, it directed the respondents 
to implement Government Order dated 11th November, 1985 read with 
order dated 28th September, 1984 and Mint Diary Order No. 130/84 dated 
26th October, 1984 and include the House Rent Allowance as part of the 
'ordinary rate of wages' for computing the overtime allowance. Union of 
India preferred appeals before this Court. 
G 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgment of the 
High Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. The respondents and other employees of the Government 
Mint who are occupying Government accommodation are not entitled to 
include the house rent allowance as part of the "ordinary rate of wages" 
H for computing the overtime allowance. [160-G] 
152 
.. 
U.0.1. v. S.C. B~KEY 
153 
Govind Bapu Salvi and Ors. v. Viswanath Janardhan Joshi and Ors., 
[1995] Supp. l'SCC 148 and The Master of the Mint v. Kashi Nath Dutta 
and Anr., [1995] 7 scale SP 7. 
2. It is no doubt correct that the Government instructions spPcifically 
provide that "overtime allowance will be computed on the basis of emolu-
ments including house rent allowance", but it is nowhere provided in the 
said instructions that even those employees who are occupying Government 
houses and as such are not being paid the house rent allowance, are also · 
entitled to include House Rent Allowance, notionally, in their wages for the 
purposes of computing the overtime allowance. A bare reading of the 
Government instructions relied upon by the Tribunal goes to show that the 
said instructions do not give any right to the respondents and others 
similarly situated to have the house rent amount included in their emolu-
ments for the purpose of computing overtime allowance. [157-E-F; 158-G] 
A 
B 
c 
3. Even otherwise the Government instructions have to be read in D 
conformity with the provisions of the Act. The overtime allowance has to 
be computed on the basis of the "ordinary rate of wages". Sub-section (2) 
of Section 59 of the Factories Act defines "ordinary rate"of wages" to mean 
the basic wages plus such allowance as the worker is for the time being 
entitled to, but does not include the bonus and wages for overtime work. 
Thus the ordinary rate of wages is the basic wages plus the allowances to 
which a worker is entitled for the time being. If a worker is not entitled to 
a particular allowance the same cannot be includ~d in the "ordinary rate 
of wages". In the present case, admittedly, the respondents are not entitled 
E 
to the house rent allowance and as such the same cannot be included while 
determining the ordinary rate of wages. It would be wholly fallacious to F 
include an allowance 'notionally' which has been excluded specifically. The 
legislature in its wisdom included the cash equivalent of the advantage 
accruing through the concessional sale to workers of foodgrains and other 
articles in the definition of "ordinary rate of wages". The legislature has 
not done so ~n respect of the house rent allowance. [159-D-F] 
G 
4. It is directed that the respondents or other employees of the 
Government-Mint similarly situated who have already been paid overtime 
allowance in terms of the Tribunal judgments shall not be asked to refund 
the same. [160-H] 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1837 of 
1991 Etc. 
From
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.