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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more