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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more