# WORKMEN OF THE CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD v. CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. May·I, 1973

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 138
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 1968
- **Bench:** A. N. Grover, A. K. ·Mukherjea, C. A. .Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/workmen-of-the-calcutta-electric-supply-corporation-ltd-v-calcutta-electric-6640
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

B
Industrial Dispute-Oi'ettin1e
wages, rate
of-Payment for all working
hours in excess of prescribed ll'orking hours must be at special rates and not at
time rates,'
·
Different categories of employees of the respondent company had different
weekly hours of work prescribed for them. The \Veekly hours for some were
48, for others 40 and for some others 3.5.
Overtime \Vas paid to different categories of \\'Orkn1en at different rates and was calculated by different sr.stems. In
an industrial dispute between the company and its workmen the Tnbunal held
that an employees
were to get overtime for any period in excess
of their
weekly hours of work but less than 48 hours a week, at tl:eir time rates. For
periods exceeding 48 hours a week all workmen were to receive overtime
wages at 1 ! times their respective time-rates.. In appeal by special leave the
appellant wor1.111en contended that if an employee had to work beyond his scheduled working hours he should get proportij>nately
more wages for each of
such extra hours. ·
.
HELD : The decision of this Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. requires payment
of overtin1e \vages for all hours in ·excess •of the prescribed working hours at
sjJecial ove;time rates and. n_ot at time-rates. In view of this decision, which is
binding, tte appeal must be allowed.
Overtime
to the appellants must
be
paid for <it l} times the hourly rate foi all hours of work beyond the seheduled
hours and r.ot merely for hours of \vork beyond 48 h<!urs in a week.
[140fl]
[With the consent of the parties the Court further directed that in respect
· of the past period overtime payments for hours of work in excess of tke sCheduled hours uvto 48 hours should ·be at l ! times the hourly rate which tile
company had already paid in terms of the Award].
Indian 0.ro·gen Ltd. v. Their Workmen. [1969] I S.C.R. _550, followed.

## Text

138
WORKMEN OF THE CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY
CORPORATION LTD.
v.
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.
May·I, 1973
(A. N. GROVER, A. K. ·MUKHERJEA. AND .C. A. .VAIDIALINGAM JJ.]
B
Industrial Dispute-Oi'ettin1e
wages, rate
of-Payment for all working
hours in excess of prescribed ll'orking hours must be at special rates and not at
time rates,'
·
Different categories of employees of the respondent company had different
weekly hours of work prescribed for them. The \Veekly hours for some were
48, for others 40 and for some others 3.5.
Overtime \Vas paid to different categories of \\'Orkn1en at different rates and was calculated by different sr.stems. In
an industrial dispute between the company and its workmen the Tnbunal held
that an employees
were to get overtime for any period in excess
of their
weekly hours of work but less than 48 hours a week, at tl:eir time rates. For
periods exceeding 48 hours a week all workmen were to receive overtime
wages at 1 ! times their respective time-rates.. In appeal by special leave the
appellant wor1.111en contended that if an employee had to work beyond his scheduled working hours he should get proportij>nately
more wages for each of
such extra hours. ·
.
HELD : The decision of this Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. requires payment
of overtin1e \vages for all hours in ·excess •of the prescribed working hours at
sjJecial ove;time rates and. n_ot at time-rates. In view of this decision, which is
binding, tte appeal must be allowed.
Overtime
to the appellants must
be
paid for <it l} times the hourly rate foi all hours of work beyond the seheduled
hours and r.ot merely for hours of \vork beyond 48 h<!urs in a week.
[140fl]
[With the consent of the parties the Court further directed that in respect
· of the past period overtime payments for hours of work in excess of tke sCheduled hours uvto 48 hours should ·be at l ! times the hourly rate which tile
company had already paid in terms of the Award].
Indian 0.ro·gen Ltd. v. Their Workmen. [1969] I S.C.R. _550, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated January 31, 19.68
of the Ilnd Industrial Tribunal, West-Bengal, Calcutta in Case No.
VIII-65 of I 967 published in the Calcutta Gazette dated February
29, 1968.
R. K. Garg, S. C.
Aggarwala, and Haroobhai
Mehta, for the
appellant.
c
D
E
F
'G
P. P. Ginwalla, Arijit Chauduri, Bhuvanesh Ku1n11ri and 0. C.
Mathur, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MUKHERJEA, J. This appeal by special leave from an Award dated
31January1968 of the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, relates
essentially to the manner of calculation of overtime wages for nonH
factory personnel (including the members of the clerical staff) of the
Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
the Company). The question that was referred to the Tribunal for
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
WORKMEN V, CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY. CORP. LTD.
139
(Mukherjea, J.)
adjudication was framed by the Government of West Bengal in its order
of reference in the-following manner:-
.
"How wages for non-factory personnel
(including the
members of the clerical staff) should be calculated and the
date from which overtime wages for such personnel should be
lhus calculated ?"
The Tribunal in its Award directed that the overtime rate focnonfactory personnel should in no case be less than the time-rate. · The
Tribunal further directed that ne- employee should get overtime at more
than the time-rate until he has completed 48 hours a week but that as
soon as he exceeds 48 hours, the overtime rate should be H times the
time-rate.
This rate of overtime wages in favour of the non-factory
personnel was directed to be given effect to from 4 February-1967 which
was the date of reference.
The workmen of the company have now
come on appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in so far as the
Tribunal limited the overtime wages to the time-rate for any period short
of 48 .hours a week.
It appears that different categories of employees of the company
have different weekly hours of work prescribes! for them. The weekly
hours for some are 48, for others 40 and for some others 35.
The
learned Tribunal seems to have been impressed by the fact that overtime was paid to different categories of workmen at different rates and
that they were calculated by different systems. The Tribunal tried to
rationalise the situation by providing the payment of overtime at uniform
rates to all emplor~s up to 48 hours a week : all employees were t<>
get overtime for any period in excess of their weekly hours of. work but
less than 48 hours a week at their time-rates. For periods exceeding
48 hours a week, however, all workmen were to receive·overtime wages
at 1 t times their respective time-rates. This is how the Tribund according to the respondent company sought to establish 'uniformity in the
matter of payment of overtime wages. The appellants contended that
payment of wages for overtime at the time-rate cannot be taken as overtime payment at all. If an employee has to work beyond his scheduled
working hours he should get proportionately more wages for each such
extra hour. The respondent tried to meet this grievance by saying that
in some cases tlie weekly hours of work were less than 48 only because
in the centres concerned, there was not sufficient .work to keep the
employees busy for 48 hours every week. Even so the company would
have been at liberty to fix 48 hours as the weekly hours of work for all
employees. The fact that in the case of certain employees they fixed a
shorter period should not, they say, go against the co~·;-any and they
should be allowed to make .the employees work up to 48 hours a week
on payment of overtime wages at the time-rate. It was pomted·out that
the award of the Tribunal did not enable the company to get overtime
work without payment of extra wages. All that it pennitted the com-
·pany to do was to pay overtime wages ·at the time-rate up to 48 hours
a week. This provision meant that up to one point all workers were
placed on the same uniform basis. After that point had been reached
i.e., to say for any period of overtime beyond 48 hours a week, the
employees were to get overtime wages at 1 t time-rates.
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R.
The point for decision, in our opinion, is one which is completely
A
.covered by the decision of this Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v.
Their
Workmen.(')
In that case the employees made ;.various demands of
which demand No. 3 was that "the payment of ofortime to office staff
.should be H times the ordinary rate beyond their normal duty hours''.
As regards this demand the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant
company were tw:>-fold.
First, that under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act the company could be made liable to pay for overtime
B
work at the rate provided in that Act, viz., at double the ordinary rate
when a workman was asked to work beyond 48 hours per week as provided in that Act.
Therefore, it was argued, the appellant company
could not be asked to pay more than the ordinary rate Of wages payable
to workmen if they were asked to work beyond 39 hours but not exceeding 48 hours. Secondly, it was argue.ct, that if the company were to
pay 1 t times its ordinary rate of wages for overtime it would be paying
C
more than other similar concerns.
This Court rejected both
these
-contentions. Shelat J. who delivered the judgment of the Court made
ltbe following observations regarding the first contention ;-
"In our judgment both these contentions are unsustainable.
Under the conditions of service of the c01μpariy, the
total hours of work per week are 39 hours.
Only wrokman
asked to work beyond these hours would obviously be working
overtime and the company in fairness would be expected to
pay him compensation for such overtime work.
The Bihar
Shops and Establishments Act has no relevance to this question
as that Act fixes the maximum number of hours of work
·allowable thereunder, i.e., 48 hours a week, and provides for
double the rate of ordinary wages for work done "over and
·above 48 hours. It is not, therefore, as if the provisions of
that Act govern overtime payment payable by an employer
where maximum hours of work are governed by the conditions
of service prevailing in his establishment. Therefore, no
relience can be placed on the provisions of that Act for the
company's contention that it cannot be called upon to pay for
overtime work anything more than its ordinary rate of wages
if the workmen do work beyond 39 hours buf not exceeding
48 hours a week. It is obvious that if the company were
asked to pay at the rate equivalent to the ordinary rate of
wages for work done beyond 39 hours but not exceeding 48
hours work a week, it would be paying no extra compensation
at all for the work done beyond the agreed hours of work.
The company would in that case be indirectly increasing the
hours of work and consequently altering its conditions of
service."
Jn view of this decision the matter is no longer res integra and we
are bound by the previous decision.
Mr. Ginwala appearing for the
respondent sought to argue that what this Court had disallowed in the
Indian Oxygen Ltd.'s case was non-payment of extra wages for the extra
hours of work beyond the normal weekly hours until they exceeded 48
'hours of work per week. It was argued that the real ·ratfo of the deci-
(1) [1969]1 S.C.R. 550.
0
E
F
G
H
/
A
B
c
D
E
\ \
WORKMEN V. c;ALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY. CORP. LTD.
141
'
(Mukherjea, /.)
\
sion in that case was that the workmen should be entitled to overtime
wages only for a period in excess of the prescribed monthly working
hours. This is not, in our opinion, a correct construction of that decision where ibis' Court clearly referred to',.the rate of payment for the
extra hours o~ work.
We have no doubt in our mind that the decision
in that case requires payment of overtime wages for all hours in excess
of the prescribed working hours at special overtime rates and nol at
time-rates.
In this view of the ]patter we felt inclined to allow the appeal and
to set"aside the Award of the Tribunal and to direct that overtime is to
be paid for at l t times the hourly rate for all hours of work beyond the
scheduled hours and not merely for hours of work beyond 48 hours in
a week.
This was to apply as from the date of our order. It was,
however, rep1~nted to us.on behalf of the company that in respect of
the period between the date of the Award and the date of our judgment,
the total amount involved as a result of this increase' proposed to be
sanctioned by us in overtime rate will be about Rs. 60 lakhs which the
company, we were told, has not the capacity to pay. This might have
necessitated a remand to the Tribunal on the question of capacity but
the counsel for both the parties have in order to avoid any delay in the
disposal of the matter agreed-very rightly and properly, rn·our opinion,
-to a suggestion made by us that in respect of the past period overtime
payments for hours worked in excess of the scheduled hours up to 48
hours should be at It times the hourly rate instead of the hourly rate
which the company has already paid in terms of the Award.
The
arrears will be paid by 12 equal instalments over a pedod of 2 years.
We therefore order accordingly. The parties will pay and bear their
own costs.
G.C.