285.civil Appeal Nos. 2911-2920 of 2023 - ENG
285.civil Appeal Nos. 2911-2920 of 2023 - ENG
285.civil Appeal Nos. 2911-2920 of 2023 - ENG
those in the civil services of the Union or the State. [Paras 20- A
22][258-E-H; 259-A-B]
1.3 Unlike those employed in factories and industrial
establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil
posts or in the civil services of the Union or the State are required
to place themselves at the disposal of the Government all the B
time. In the light of the above Rule, there was actually no scope
for the respondents to seek payment of Double Over Time
Allowance. No benefit can be claimed by anyone dehors the
statutory rules. Unfortunately, the Central Administrative Tribunal
completely lost sight of those Rules, and the distinction between
employment in a factory and employment in Government service. C
[Paras 24, 25][259-E, G-H; 260-A]
1.4 Persons who are not holders of civil posts nor in the
civil services of the State but who are governed only by the 1948
Act, may be made to work for six days in a week with certain
limitations as to weekly hours under Section 51, weekly holidays D
under Section 52, daily hours under Section 54, etc. Workers
covered by Factories Act do not enjoy the benefit of automatic
wage revision through periodic Pay Commissions like those in
Government service. Persons holding civil posts or in the civil
services of the State enjoy certain privileges and hence, the claim E
made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the
Tribunal and the High Court, in the proper perspective to see
whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.
Admittedly, the State Government is conferred with the power
under Section 64(1) to make exempting Rules. In exercise of
the power so conferred, the State of Maharashtra has framed Rule F
100. Apparently, the post of Supervisor is included in Rule 100,
as a post exempted from the application of the provisions of
Chapter VI. The chart of duties indicated in the ACRs does not
show that the respondents are required to perform manual labour
or clerical work as a regular part of their duties. The High Court G
fell into an error in holding that the performance of certain
functions, such as setting right malfunctioning of feeder, side-lay,
double-sheet detector, photocell, etc., to ensure uninterrupted
running of the machinery, are manual functions. In any case, the
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
1
For short, “Corporation” H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
2
H For short, “1948 Act”
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF 253
INDIA LTD. v. VIJAY D. KASBE [V. RAMSUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Section 64(1) of the 1948 Act, the State Government was entitled to A
make Rules exempting the application of the provisions of Chapter VI
of the Act to certain categories of workers. In exercise of the power
conferred by Section 64(1), the State of Maharashtra had issued a set of
Rules known as Maharashtra Factories Rules, 19633, Rule 100 of which
exempted Supervisors from the application of the provisions of Chapter
B
VI, provided they were not required to perform manual labour or clerical
work as a regular part of their duties. In the light of such a stand taken
by the Union of India, the Tribunal, in the batch of applications decided
on 9.6.2010, framed the following question as arising for consideration:-
“Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the cases the
applicants in these OAs are entitled to double OTA under Section C
59(1) of the Factories Act, even after considering the provisions
of Section 64(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with the provisions
of Rule 100 of Maharashtra Factories Rule, 1963?”
8. After framing the issue as aforesaid, the Tribunal recorded a
finding that the applicants before the Tribunal were doing clerical work D
as a part of their regular duties and that therefore they were excluded
from the application of Rule 100 of the 1963 Rules, in view of the proviso
contained therein. In view of the said finding, the Tribunal held that the
applicants before the Tribunal were entitled to Double Over Time
Allowance. E
9. In contrast, the very same Tribunal found in its order dated
15.9.2006 in the original application filed by A.K. Biswas and others that
the applicants before the Tribunal were not performing any manual labour
or clerical work as a regular part of their duties and that therefore by
virtue of Rule 100 of the 1963 Rules, they stood excluded from the F
benefit conferred by Section 59(1) of the 1948 Act.
10. Thus, the Central Administrative Tribunal reached diametrically
opposite findings of fact, in two different sets of cases filed by employees
who were identically placed and discharging identical duties and
responsibilities. The reason why we record this fact is that in normal G
circumstances, the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 226/227 and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136,
will not be inclined to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by a
Tribunal. But in this case, there are two diametrically opposite set of
3
For short, “1963 Rules” H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
4
1970 (3) SCC 378
5
H For short, “1947 Act”
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF 257
INDIA LTD. v. VIJAY D. KASBE [V. RAMSUBRAMANIAN, J.]
of Wages Act, 19366, insofar as the claim for extra wages for overtime A
work is concerned; (ii) that therefore Rule 100 of the 1963 Rules has no
application to the case of the respondents in view of the said proviso to
Section 64(1); and (iii) that the Central Administrative Tribunal itself
had passed orders in several applications, in favour of employees
identically placed and working as Supervisors, the details of which are
B
provided in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by A.K. Biswas in
the above appeals and that therefore the orders of the Tribunal and the
High Court do not call for any interference.
15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.
16. At the outset, it should be noted that the claim of the respondents C
for payment of Double Over Time Allowance arose entirely during the
period from 1988 to 2005. Since the ‘Corporation’ was incorporated
only on 13.1.2006 and all the nine production units coming under the
control of the Currency and Coinage Division of the Department of
Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India were
transferred to the Corporation only with effect from 10.2.2006, the claim D
of the respondents obviously arose at the time when they were Central
Government servants. In other words, their claim should be considered
to have arisen only in relation to “service matters” of persons appointed
to “a service in connection with the affairs of the Union” or in relation
to “holders of civil post.” E
17. The definition of the expression “service matters”, is provided
in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19857 and it reads as
follows:-
“3. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,— F
xxx xxx xxx
(q) “service matters”, in relation to a person, means all matters
relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of any State
G
or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may
be, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the
6
For short, “1936 Act”
7
For short, “1985 Act” H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.
A Government, as respects—
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other
retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion,
premature retirement and superannuation;
B
(iii) leave of any kind;
(iv) disciplinary matters; or
(v) any other matter whatsoever;”
18. It is seen from sub-clause (i) of clause (q) of Section 3 extracted
C above that any issue relating to remuneration including allowances, is a
service matter. The respondents herein, at least during the period from
1988 till the year 2006, were either holders of civil posts under the Union
or appointed to the civil services of the Union.
19. This is why the respondents approached the Central
D Administrative Tribunal, for the adjudication of their service matter. The
respondents did not go either before the Labour Court constituted under
the 1947 Act or before the Authorities empowered under other labour
welfare legislations, despite Section 28 of the 1985 Act not excluding the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. Keeping this
E in mind, let us now address a more fundamental question.
20. Primarily, the terms and conditions of service of persons in
the civil services of the Union or the State and persons holding civil
posts under the Union or the State, are regulated either by the Acts of
the appropriate Legislature passed in terms of Article 309 or by the
Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article
F
309 of the Constitution. Therefore, whenever a dispute relating to a
service matter, which includes a claim for allowances, is raised before
the Administrative Tribunal, the primary duty of the Tribunal is to see
what is provided by the relevant Act issued under the main part of Article
309 or the Rules issued under the Proviso to Article 309.
G 21. It must be kept in mind that appointment either to a civil post
or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status. It is
not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely
by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued
under Article 309 or its proviso.
H
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF 259
INDIA LTD. v. VIJAY D. KASBE [V. RAMSUBRAMANIAN, J.]
H
SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF 263
INDIA LTD. v. VIJAY D. KASBE [V. RAMSUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A for extra hours; (ii) that the Tribunal reached diametrically opposite
findings of fact in respect of persons holding similar supervisory posts;
and (iii) that therefore, the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are
unsustainable.
41. In view of the above, all the appeals are allowed and the
B impugned order of the High Court is set aside. However, we find that
some of the employees have retired, some have passed away and in
respect of some who have passed away, the appeals have been abated.
Therefore, even while allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned
order of the High Court, we direct the appellants not to effect any
recovery from those to whom payments have already been made. No
C order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.