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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more