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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more