Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

The Vyavasthapak Murliwala Agro.Ltd vs Kanhaiya Lal And Ors on 23 April, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2025:RJ-JD:19018]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

               S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156/2007

1. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Heeralal Ameta, about 50 years by
Caste Ameta, R/o Brahmano Ka Kalwana, Thesil Gogunda Dist.
Udaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Chaman Singh S/o Shri Bhur Singh by Caste Solanki, R/o
Solankiyon ka Basra, Post Gudli Tehsil Malvi Dist, Udaipur.
3. Hemant Singh S/o Sh. Keshar Singh Kitwat, R/o Vill. Bhimal,
Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
4. Bhagwati Lal S/o Nathu Lal Lohar, R/o Vill. Sotola, Via Badi
Sadri, Dist. Chittorgarh.
5. Hamer Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Dheekaliya
Charas Via Teh.Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
6. Nirbhay Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Bavda
Via Dabok, Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
7. Nathu Singh S/o shri Masdhu Singh Deora, R/o Vill Dheekaliya
Charas Via Dabok, Teh. Mavli, Dist. Udaipur
8. Ram Lal S/o Shri Bala Ram Gayri, R/o Maharaj Ki Kheri,
Teh.Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur.
9. Devi Lal S/o Shri Mota Gayri, R/o Maharaj Ki Kheri, Teh
Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur.
10. Gulab Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh Solanki, R/o Solankiyon Ka
Bara, Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
11. Ganesh Lal S/o Shri Udai Lal Gujar R/o Vill. Kameri, Tehsil
Mavli, Dist. Udaipur
12. Kesar Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Rela,
Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
13. Inder Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Rela,
Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
14. Pratap Singh S/o Shri Nar Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Sakroda,
Tehsil Girwa Dist. Udaipur.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                       Versus



The Vyavasthak Murliwala Agrotek Limited, 245, Industrial Area,
Gudli, District Udaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
                     S.B. Civ.cros.obj.civ.rev No. 1/2011

The Vyavasthak Murliwala Agrotek Limited, 245, Industrial Area,
Gudli, District Udaipur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus


                        (Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:08:54 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:19018]                   (2 of 8)                         [CR-156/2007]




1. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Heeralal Ameta, about 50 years by
Caste Ameta, R/o Brahmano Ka Kalwana, Thesil Gogunda Dist.
Udaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Chaman Singh S/o Shri Bhur Singh by Caste Solanki, R/o
Solankiyon ka Basra, Post Gudli Tehsil Malvi Dist, Udaipur.
3. Hemant Singh S/o Sh. Keshar Singh Kitwat, R/o Vill. Bhimal,
Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
4. Bhagwati Lal S/o Nathu Lal Lohar, R/o Vill. Sotola, Via Badi
Sadri, Dist. Chittorgarh.
5. Hamer Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Dheekaliya
Charas Via Teh.Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
6. Nirbhay Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Bavda
Via Dabok, Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
7. Nathu Singh S/o shri Masdhu Singh Deora, R/o Vill Dheekaliya
Charas Via Dabok, Teh. Mavli, Dist. Udaipur
8. Ram Lal S/o Shri Bala Ram Gayri, R/o Maharaj Ki Kheri,
Teh.Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur.
9. Devi Lal S/o Shri Mota Gayri, R/o Maharaj Ki Kheri, Teh
Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur.
10. Gulab Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh Solanki, R/o Solankiyon Ka
Bara, Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
11. Ganesh Lal S/o Shri Udai Lal Gujar R/o Vill. Kameri, Tehsil
Mavli, Dist. Udaipur
12. Kesar Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Rela,
Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
13. Inder Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Rela,
Tehsil Mavli, Dist. Udaipur.
14. Pratap Singh S/o Shri Nar Singh Deora, R/o Vill. Sakroda,
Tehsil Girwa Dist. Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Harish Purohit
                                Mr. Vinod Choudhary
                                Mr. Narpat Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Pankaj Sharma


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                            :       09.04.2025

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                          :       23.04.2025


1.    Heard the parties.

2. A brief background leading to this civil revision under Section

115 C.P.C. is that the petitioners jointly moved an application

[2025:RJ-JD:19018] (3 of 8) [CR-156/2007]

before the "Authority" on 15.07.1999 under the Payment of Wages

Act, 1936 (the Act) claiming wages for overtime work done by

them in view of the provisions under Section 15(2) read with 16 of

the said Act. The said petition was registered as P.W. 38 of 99

(ALC) and by judgment dated 31.03.2006, prayer of the

petitioners was allowed.

3. The said order was challenged in appeal under Section 17 of

the said Act before the Civil Court and by the impugned judgment

dated 13.02.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.44/2006, the

learned District Judge, Udaipur set aside the judgment of the

Authority.

4. The case and claim of the petitioners is that they were

employed as wagers with respondent factory M/s Murliwala

Agrotek Limited for the period 01.07.1998 to 30.06.1999. The

petitioners asserted that petitioner-Bhagwati Lal was getting

Rs.1466/- for 12 hours work and other petitioners were getting

Rs.1250/- for their 12 hours work. As per law, the employer could

take 8 hours work only. Hence, the aforesaid wage was for 8 hours

work and the petitioners were entitled for overtime of 4 hours,

which would be double the amount payable for 8 hours work.

5. The respondent contested the claim of the petitioners by

asserting that the petitioners were not engaged by the factory

ever. Rather they were working with contractor-Ramswaroop and

Ramswaroop had engaged them for work of the factory and only

Ramswaroop knows that which of the petitioner did work on which

date and for what hour. Moreover, there was no agreement for

overtime payment hence, the petitioners cannot claim wages for

overtime.

[2025:RJ-JD:19018] (4 of 8) [CR-156/2007]

6. The authority under the Act found that in Case No.68/1999,

the Civil Court, Mavli had held that the petitioners were regular

worker of the respondent, as such, they were entitled for payment

of wages for overtime work done by them. The aforesaid judgment

got finality hence, the Authority took the view that the petitioners

were regular worker of the respondent. Moreover, the petitioners

had produced some of the registers and provident fund receipts as

well as identity card issued by the Employees State Insurance

Company to support that they were regular worker of the

respondent. The petitioners had filed application before the

Authority asking the respondent to produce certain documents in

possession of the respondent, which would prove the claim of the

petitioners to be regular wager of the respondent, but the

respondent did not produce the same, hence, adverse inference

was drawn.

7. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal on two grounds, first

that payment of overtime was not part of the service contract and

second that since the wages claimed by the petitioners exceeded

the ceiling of Rs.1600/- as provided under Section 1(6) of the said

Act, hence, the claim cannot be allowed.

8. Mr. Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that as per the definition of "wages" under Section 2(vi)

of the Act, the overtime work done and the wages payable is also

covered under the definition of the wages. Hence, the Appellate

Court erred in law in going against the mandate of law and acting

on conjectures and surmises that there was no contract between

the parties for overtime.

[2025:RJ-JD:19018] (5 of 8) [CR-156/2007]

9. Learned counsel contends that it was established by

evidence that the petitioners and others were working in two

shifts in a day and each shift was divided by 12 hours.

10. Learned counsel contends that under Section 48 of the

Factories Act, if the worker works in a factory for more than 48

hours in any week, then he shall be entitled to receive the wages

on the head "overtime".

11. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent

contends that it was burden of the petitioners to prove the facts

pleaded and they cannot claim benefit of the weakness of the case

of the respondent. Even if the respondent had not produced any

document on being asked, the petitioners were bound to prove

those facts beyond doubt.

12. On perusal of the statutory provisions and evidence on the

record, this Court finds substance in the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had performed

overtime work with the respondent for which they were entitled

for overtime wages irrespective of the fact that there was no

specific stipulation in the agreement between the parties. It is

worth to notice that no copy of agreement was produced on the

record.

13. Section 2(vi) of the Act reads as follows :

(vi) "wages" means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances, or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes-

[2025:RJ-JD:19018] (6 of 8) [CR-156/2007]

(a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;

(b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period;

(d) any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made;

(e) any sum to which the person emploved is entitled under any scheme framed under any law for the time being in force, but does not include-

(1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;

(2) the value of any house-accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of the appropriate Government];

(3) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued thereon;

(4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession;

(5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or (6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in sub-clause (d).]"

[2025:RJ-JD:19018] (7 of 8) [CR-156/2007]

14. Evidently, the case is covered under Clause (b). As such for

overtime work done, the wages of the petitioners remain due with

the respondent. In view of the statutory provision, the Appellate

Court exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as

it did not meet with the reasons of the "Authority" nor acted

consistent with the statutory provision aforesaid. The statutory

provisions under the Payment of Wages Act as well as Factories

Act are to protect the interest of the workmen engaged in the

factory. It is not disputed that the petitioners had worked

everyday for 12 hours. It is also not controverted that provisions

of Section 48 of the Factories Act require that if the worker works

in a factory for more than 48 hours in a week, then he shall be

entitled to receive wages on the head "overtime".

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the

petitioners filed applications claiming overtime wages on

15.07.1999. The Authority passed the judgment on 31.03.2006.

In the meantime, amended provisions under Section 1(6) came

into force with effect from 09.11.2005.

16. Provision 1(6) of the Act read as follows :

"1(6) This Act applies to wages payable to an employed person in respect of a wage period if such wages for that wage period do not exceed [eighteen thousand rupees] per month or such other higher sum which, on the basis of figures of the Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the National Sample Survey Organisation, the Central Government may, after every five years, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.]"

17. Learned counsel submits that purpose of determining the

wages of the petitioners is just to ensure the applicability of the

[2025:RJ-JD:19018] (8 of 8) [CR-156/2007]

Act and the learned Appellate Court wrongly included the claim of

overtime with the wages earned by the petitioners. The Appellate

Court was of the view that the petitioners had demanded Rs.2500

and Rs.2932 respectively. Hence, their claim was not entertainable

in view of the statutory provisions of Section 1(4) of the Act.

Since, the amended provision of Section 1(6) was already there on

the date of order by the Authority, as such, the claim of the

petitioners could not have been rejected for the aforesaid reason.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent simply supports the