the appellant disputed the validity of this claim.
950 961 963 967 970 989 992 994 1013 1015 1016 1049 1050 and 11510 11511 and 11513 11517 of 1955 respectively.
purshottam tricumdas and g. n. srivastava for the respondents in all the appeals except c. a. number 186 of 1957.
the authority then examined the question as to whether the timekeepers are workers within the meaning of s. 2 1 of the factories act.
c. m. pradhan hereafter called the respondent which gives rise to civil appeal number 131 of 1957 before us.
appeals by special leave from the judgments and order dated october 19 1955 and january 31 1956 of the authority under payment of wages act bombay in applications number.
the appellant was accordingly directed to file a statement showing the overtime wages to which the several respondents were entitled and orders were passed on each one of the applications directing the appellant to pay the respective amounts to.
this work consists in preparing the progress time sheets and operation time sheets of machine shop staff working on various jobs dealing with the production of railway spare parts.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.131 to 304 of 1957.
the respondent alleged that he was a worker within the meaning of s. 2 sub s. 1 of the said factories act lxiii of 1948 and as such he was entitled to overtime wages under s 59 of the said act.
1959 may 8.
it was urged on its behalf that the respondent was number a worker under s. 2 1 of the factories act and that s. 70 of the act did number justfy the claim alternatively made by the respondent for overtime wages.
alternatively he urged that even if he was number a worker within the meaning of s. 2 1 of the said act he would nevertheless be entitled to overtime wages under the said s. 59 by reason of s. 70 of the bombay shops and establishments act 1948 bom.
the respondents case was that he was entitled to the overtime wages for work on such sundays when he was number given a holiday within three days prior to or three days subsequent to the sundays on which he worked.
all these applications were heard by the payment of wages authority bombay as companypanion matters and they have been disposed of by a companymon judgment.
the appellant conceded that the respondent had number been given a holiday within the three days prior to or the three days subsequent to the sundays on which he had worked as required by s. 52 of the indian factories act.
the authority companysidered the evidence led before it in respect of all the repondents for overtime wages.
the authority was disposed to take the view that having regard to the nature of the work assigned to the progress time keepers they must be held to be persons employed in work incidental to or companynected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process and as such they are workers within the meaning of s. 2 1 of the factories act.
c. setalvad attorney general for india r. ganapathy iyer and r. h. dhebar for the appellants.
thus the claim for overtime wages was made by the respondent on two alternative grounds.
b. p. hira works manager central railway workshop and factory parel bombay hereafter called the appellant by the employees at the said factory hereafter called the respondents under the payment of wages act 1936 iv of 1936 claiming payment of overtime wages since 1948.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this group of 174 appeals by special leave arises from the several applications made against mr.
evidence showed that four timekeepers are required to do the work of progress timekeepers.
each one of the respondents.
it appears that these respondents are employed by the appellant in the time office of the parel workshop and number in the factory itself.
it is against these orders that the appellant has filed the present group of appeals by special leave.
the main judgment has however been delivered by the said authority in the application filed by mr.
79 of 1948 hereafter called the act .
for the period subsequent to the said date was companysidered on the merits.
the duties of these timekeepers are to maintain initial records of attendance of workshop staff to prepare pay sheets for them to maintain their leave accounts to dispose of final settlement cases of the said staff and to maintain records for statistical information.
