M.C. Agarwal, Regional Manager Siemens India Ltd., Madras-34 vs The Asst. Inspector of Labour, 32nd Circle and State of Tamil Nadu

Singaravelu, J.—This is a petition u/s 482, Crl. P.C., by the accused/Regional Manager of M/s. Siemens India Limited, Madras for quashing the prosecution against the company for violation of R 16AA of the Tamil Nadu shops and Establishments Rules. 1948 and S 31 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act read with Rule 10 of the said Rules

According to the Petitioner, the prosecution for the alleged violation of S 31 of the said Act read with R. 10 of the said Rules is bad in law as there is no violation what so ever in as much as the employees had not worked exceeding 48 hours per week, S. 31 of the said Act deals with wages for overtime work and it says that overtime workers are entitled to wages at twice the ordinary rate of wages. But this section is qualified by Section 14 of the said Act which deals with daily and weekly hours of work. It says that no person employed in any establishments shall be required to work for more than eight hours in any day and forty-eight hours in any week. Proviso to S 14(1) of the Act lays down that overtime wages should be paid to the work done in excess of the normal working hour and even when overtime wages are paid, no person should be allowed to work more than 10 hours in any day and not more than 54 hours in any week. Therefore, overtime work means work done in excess of normal working hours, namely, more than eight hours per day and more than 48 hours in any week. It follows that the workmen will be entitled to claim wages at double the ordinary rate of wages for the work done beyond the normal working hours.

This has been made amply clear by a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Philips India Ltd. v. The Labour Court, Madras, and The State Bank of India v. Central Government Labour Court and another C.A No. 833, 834 of 1976and C. A. Nos. 835-836/1976 Judgment dated 26th March 1985. In these cases, the Supreme Court has overruled the decision of this Court in the decision reported in M/s. Philips India Ltd., Madras v. Labour,Court, Madras (1974) 1 L.L.J 393. Therefore, the prosecution case is that the company should pay overtime wages at double the ordinary rate beyond 36 hours is unsustainable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above. As already stated, overtime wages will be paid only for the period beyond 48 hours per week. The result is, the prosecution in respect of S. 31 of the said Act read with R.10 of the said Rules is liable to be and is hereby quashed.

There remains the alleged violation of R. 16AA of the said Rules. It deals with maintenance and supply of Service Book. This is a matter which has to be decided only after recording evidence. Therefore, the question whether there is violation or not in respect of R. 16AA of the Rules is a matter to be decided by the trial Court. The result is, the prosecution u/s 31 of the said Act read with R.10 of the said Rules is quashed and the prosecution in respect of R. 16AA of the said Rules will be proceeded with. However, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the accused is the Regional Manager having offices all over India and since the offence complained of is only trivial and technical i nature, his presence in the trial Court may not be insisted upon. The request is reasonable and therefore his presence during trial before the trial (sic)Court is dispensed with. However, the Petitioner will make arrangement to engage his counsel to represent him on his behalf.