Chennai: Pointing out that the issue raised by a worker is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by the court, the Madras high court has dismissed a petition from a worker, claiming payment of overtime wages from the management.
Justice S.Vaidyanathan dismissed the petition filed by M.K.Thiyagarajan, which sought to quash an order of the Chief General Manager -HR of Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Karur district.
According to petitioner, during the services rendered by him in the year 2009 to 2013, the management extracted half an hour per day, contrary to the regular working hours followed in all the management and establishment. Hence, there was a discrimination, unreasonableness and irrational in the service condition applied to him, which comes to 4,935 working hours, which was equivalent to 616.5 working days, excluding the service period of 2009 to 2013.
Therefore, he claimed extra wages for the extra work extracted from him. But, the management passed an order declining the claim for extra wages.The judge said it was no doubt true that the petitioner has got a right to agitate his relief before the Industrial Forum in view of the fact that the petitioner was a workman as per section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, this court was not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.
The Supreme Court, while negativing the similar plea of overtime wages for work done less than eight hours a day, in the case of Philips India Ltd.,vs Labour Court, held that an employee cannot claim overtime wages for work done beyond seven hours and less than eight hours a day and overtime wages was payable only if a person works beyond eight hours a day.
Hence, it was crystal clear that even if the prescribed hours of work was reduced to 7 and half hours a day, he cannot demand wages, as if he has worked for overtime, when the wages payable for eight hours. Even assuming that a wrong has been committed by the management with regard to the grant of payment to another employee, this court was not inclined to commit another wrong. Here petitioner would not be entitled to overtime wages.
