Shri Uttam Chand Beldar Working As … vs The Director General (Works) Cpwd M/O … on 2 August 2006

Delhi High Court
Shri Uttam Chand Beldar Working As … vs The Director General (Works) Cpwd M/O … on 2 August, 2006
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 31.7.2001 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) an authority under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 ( for short the ‘Act’ ) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for grant of over time was declined.

2. The petitioner, a regular Beldar and working as inquiry clerk with the respondent, filed a claim before Competent Authority, Minimum Wages Act claiming that he was not paid over time from 24.12.92 to 31.12.95 and 21.11.98 to 20.3.2000. The Authority declined to allow the claim of the petitioner giving finding that he was not covered under Section 14 of the Act. Authority placed reliance for this on Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Council Hatta v. Bhagat Singh and Ors. 1998-2-SC 443. The Authority observed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, over time under Section 14 of the Act was payable only to those employees who were getting minimum rate of wages as fixed under the Act. Since the petitioner was working in regular scale and was getting much more than minimum wages he was not entitled for over time under Section 14 of the Act.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. After considering issues raised before this Court and going through the judgment of Municipal council (supra) wherein Supreme Court has held:

There is also an amendment to Section 14 by addition of Sub-section (1-a) under the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961 being Act 23 of 1961. Sub-section (1-a) which is inserted in Section 14 entitles the State Government by notification to fix the limit for overtime work in a scheduled employment. This provision is not directly relevant. To claim overtime under Section 14, the following conditions must be fulfillled by an employee (1) the minimum rate of wages should be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act 1948; and (2) such an employee should work on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day. Therefore, overtime under Section 14 is payable to those employees who are getting a minimum rate of wage as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. these are the only employees to whom overtime under Section 14 would become payable. In the present case the respondents cannot be described as employees who are getting a minimum rate of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. they are getting much more and that too under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Services (Scales of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967. Therefore, Section 14 has no application to them. We have not been shown any other provision under which they can claim overtime.
5. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Council (supra) which has been followed by this Court in LPA No. 13/2003 Sushil Kumar and Ors. v. the Director General of Works CPWD and Anr., I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned competent authority. Writ petition is hereby dismissed.