Skip to main content

Employees have no right to demand overtime work: Bombay HC

Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has ruled that employees have no right to demand overtime work. "The employees have no right to overtime work, which is necessitated by exigencies. Merely because for length of time of whatever duration the shifts were so arranged as to include overtime work, that would not confer on a workman the right to overtime work," Justice Ravi Deshpande ruled while quashing an order of Nagpur Industrial Court.

"The employer has a right to withdraw the overtime work even unilaterally and such action on his part does not amount to change requiring a notice under Bombay Industrial Relations (BIR) Act," the court added.

Five permanent employees of MIDC Hingna-based Neco Schubert and Salzer Limited had lodged a complaint with Industrial Court under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions (MRTU) and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (PULP) Act, 1971, along with and BIR Act, on the ground that the employer was engaged in unfair labour practice by recruiting new manpower and not granting overtime work and wages to existing employees.

While allowing the complaint, Industrial Court restrained the company from recruiting, continuing or engaging new employees to get overtime work done. Further directing the employer to get the work done by permanent employees, the court ruled they had legal right to get the overtime work and consequently the wages. It was also held that the employment of the new recruits on temporary basis for getting the extra work done amounted to change in the service conditions. Hence, a notice of change under BIR Act was required to be given to employees.

This court also ruled that the Industrial Disputes Act's provisions were attracted in this case and it became incumbent on employer's part to seek court's permission to make such a change during pendency of the dispute. The petitioner challenged this order in the high court through counsel Vikram Marpakwar. Justice Deshpande observed there was neither any settlement, agreement or award brought on record by the employees to establish that the employer was prohibited from recruiting new manpower or had undertaken to provide overtime industrial court work to permanent employees in case of increase in work.

"The industrial court committed an error in holding there was a breach of settlement violative of MRTU and PULP Act. Even provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted, requiring permission of the court. Thus, its judgment can't be sustained," the judge stated before allowing Neco's petition.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Overtime-work-wage-are-not-a-right-HC/articleshow/29225351.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more