As the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Ref No.
Respondent I to 14 are Syphon Pumpers.
It was.
Before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the companypany companytended that all the claims were barred under an award of the Industrial Tribunal in Ref.
The applications made by respondents 81 to 113 were allowed by the Third Additional Authority holding that the award was numberbar to those applications and that the provisions of the Bombay Shops Establishments Act were applicable.
The grievance of the workers of the Mains department was that they were made to work till 1.30 p.m. On Saturdays while factory workers were let off at 1 p.m. and that 47 1/2 hours a week has bean a very long standing privilege of the workmen of this companypany and that if they are required to work for half an hour more on Saturdays the should be paid overtime at double the rate.
however, held that the appellant companypany was a companymercial establishment within the meaning of that term under the Bombay Shops Establishments Act.
54 of 1949, which was made on 30 3 1950 and published on 11 5 1950.
companypensation being the amount lost by them since e scheme was introduced.
The union pointed out several specific categories in respect of whom injustice was done.
358 of 1973 Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 6th February, 1967 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
11 was as follows Workers should get a paid weekly off.
They belonged to the Mains, Heating Appliances and Fitting Departments.
Some doubts having arisen in respect of this portion of the award a reference was made to the Tribunal under rule 20A of the Industrial Disputes Bombay Rules for clarification.
After discussing this question the Tribunal specifically came to the companyclusion that numberdirections in that respect were necessary.
11 and 12 dealt with in paragraphs 113 to 126 of the award.
They filed 14 applications before the Additional Authority under s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming overtime wages for the period February 1957 to January 1958 Respondents 15 to 80 are Mains workers.
The workmen appeals were therefore dismissed and the companypanys appeal was allowed.
All the workmen filed a writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, challenging the judgment of the Court of Small Causes.
54 of 1949 is the most important factor that has to be taken into account in companysidering this appeal it would be proper to refer to portions of that award which relate to this appeal.
The relevance of the reference to their having become workers of the companypany after 1948 will become clear when we deal with the facts of this case later.
Appeals were filed by respondents 1 to 88 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.
The doubt raised was whether the companypany was bound to give a paid weekly day off to the workers of the Mains Department and to pay them companypensation for the loss suffered by them.
Demand No 12 was as follows A All work extending beyond the scheduled hours of work should be paid for at overtime rate i.e., double the rate of wages .
C. Bhandare, P. H. Parekh, S. Bhandare, Manju Jaitley, for Respondents Nos.
As regards respondents 81 to 118 the judgment of the Third Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was restored.
Workers of Mains, Services and District fittings departments and lamp repairers, who have been adversely affected in the matter of their earnings on account of closing down of the overtime and Sunday work should be companypensated for the loss suffered by them.
The demands out of which this appeal arises were No.
1 4, 12, 15 17, 24, 27 30, 35, 36, 47, 49, 54 63, 75, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 96 107.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They had joined the appellant companypany 1 after 1948.
One of these instances was that of booster attendants and their case was specifically dealt with and provided for.
The appellant companypany filed an appeal against the judgment in the applications of respondents 81 to 118.
They filed 66 applications before the same authority claiming overtime wages for the period December 1956 to November 1957.
The Court of Small Causes dealt with the appeals filed by the workmen as well as the appeal filed by the companypany and by a companymon judgment held that the claims of workers for overtime wages and wages for weekly off days were barred by the award.
The 118 respondents are workmen of the appellant companypany working in different departments of the companypanys works.
About 23 demands companyering variety of subjects were referred to the Tribunal.
1967 of 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
11 the Tribunal pointed out that what the workers were asking for was paid weekly day off for those workers who were actually getting a weekly day off, though without pay.
1967 of 1965.
Respondents 81 to 118 filed 38 applications before the Third Additional Authority claiming wages for weekly off days.
