Overtime Allowance

Overtime Allowance

The power plant operators of the mill claimed extra remuneration (overtime wages) for not taking rest interval of the ½an hour.
Tribunal came to the findings of fact that there were three shifts working in the mill. The mill’s case was that the wages were fixed having regard to the fact that, in view of the nature of the
work the workers will be working 8 hours at a stretch without the half an hours interval admissible to other workers (for whom total working hours were 8 ½with half an hour interval). The Supreme Court held that these workmen were not entitled to extra remuneration (overtime) for having to forgo the half an hour rest interval. In Karamckand Thapar & Bros Ltd. vis their workmen, 1964 ILLJ 429, the Supreme Court laid down the following principle for fixing the overtime allowance.Image result for Overtime Allowance in Labour Laws
1. Overtime allowance should have relation to total wages (Basic wages and DA)
2. The financial condition of the company need to be taken into consideration and
3. It should be in consonance with the practice prevailing in other establishments in the surrounding area. (Therefore, in Workman ofJessop & Co. Ltd. v/s Jessop & Co.Ltd.,1964 ILLJ 451) the Court fixed overtime at the rate 1 ½ times whereas in the case under discussion it was fixed only 1 ¼ times)
The employee claimed, with other claims, the overtime wages during the period he was under suspension which was cancelled and the suspension was treated as on duty. The Bombay High Court allowed the overtime claim holding that if the employee would have been on duty, he could have earned these wages.
The overtime must be held to be a necessary component of wages and not contingent upon actual working (on the facts of this case) [Loise Xavier Mendonca v/s Trustees of BPT, 1991 ILLJ 485]. The reasoning of the court is based upon national and fictional presumption. of duty. It is with utmost respect submitted that the same does not appear to be correct. Earned ieave on Resignation Reid – the employee is entitled to it. D.N. Bondopadhyah vis P.O. XILC, 1997 II CLR 300.