{"id":84748,"date":"1984-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984"},"modified":"2017-09-03T18:20:51","modified_gmt":"2017-09-03T12:50:51","slug":"union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1022, \t\t 1984 SCR (3) 292<\/div>\n
Author: V Tulzapurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nG.M. KOKIL AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/03\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR 1022\t\t  1984 SCR  (3) 292\n 1984 SCALE  (1)521\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1990 SC1382\t (7)\n RF\t    1992 SC  81\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\n     Factories Act,  1948-s.59-Benefit of  overtime wages at\ndouble the  rate of  ordinary wages-Scope  of Section  70 of\nBombay\tShops  and  Establishments  Act,  1948\textends\t the\nbenefit under s. 59 of Factories Act to all persons employed\nin factory irrespective of the fact whether they are workers\nunder s.  2(1) of  the factories Act or not and whether they\nare exempted under s. 64 of Factories Act read with rule 100\nmade by State Government.\n     Bombay  Shops   &\tEstablishments\t Act.\t1948S-\t 70-\nInterpretation of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  respondents\twho  were   working   in   different\ncapacities in  the factory of India Security Press at Nasik,\nan establishment  of the  appellant,  filed  an\t application\nbefore the  Central Government Labour Court, Bombay under s.\n33 C(2)\t of  the  Industrial  Disputes\tAct,  1947  claiming\novertime wages at double the ordinary rate of wages under s.\n59 of  the Factories Act read with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops\nand Establishments Act, 1948. The Labour Court dismissed the\ncontentions of\tthe appellant and granted relief. Hence this\nappeal.\n     Dismissing the Appeal\n^\n     HELD: The\tcontention that\t the  respondents  were\t not\nworkers within\tthe meaning  of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act\nand therefore  not entitled  to the benefit of s. 59 of that\nAct read  with s.  70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments\nAct 1948  must fail on the plain language of s. 70. The main\nprovision of  s. 70 which is relevant consists of two parts;\nthe first  part states\tthat if there be a factory the Shops\nand Establishment  Act will  not apply\tand the\t second part\nstates that  to\t such  a  factory  'the\t provisions  of\t the\nFactories Act  shall, notwithstanding  anything contained in\nthat Act,  apply to all persons employed in or in connection\nwith the factory\". Clearly, the underlined portion (the non-\nobstante clause\t and the  phrase 'all persons employed') has\nthe effect of enlarging the scope of Factories Act by making\nit applicable  to  all\tpersons\t employed  in  such  factory\nirrespective of\t whether employed  as workers  or otherwise.\nTherefore although  the respondents  have not been 'workers'\nwithin the  meaning of\ts. 2(1) they will get the benefit of\ns. 59. [298 C-F]\n     B.P.  Hira,  Works\t Manager,  Central  Railway,  Parel,\nBombay, etc.  v. C.M. Pradhan etc [1960] S.C.R. 137 referred\nto.\n     The contention  that by  reason of rule 100 made by the\nState Govern-\n293\nment under  s. 64  of the Factories Act the benefit under s.\n59 was\tnot available  to the respondents falling within the\nexempted category  by  reason  of  their  holding  posts  of\nsupervision, has no force. [300F and 295E]\n     It is  well-known\tthat  a\t non-obstante  clause  is  a\nlegislative device  which is  usually employed to give over-\nriding\teffect\tto  certain  provision\tover  some  contrary\nprovision that\tmay be found either in the same enactment or\nsome other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation\nand effect of all contrary provisions. Thus the non-obstante\nclause in  s. 70,  namely, \"notwithstanding  anything to the\ncontrary contained  in that Act and as such it must refer to\nthe exempting  provisions which\t would be  contrary  to\t the\ngeneral applicability  of the  Act. Just  as because  of the\nnon-obstante clause  the Act is applicable even to employees\nin the\tfactory who might not be workers' under s. 2(1), the\nsame non-obstante clause will keep away the applicability of\nexemption provisions  quarrel those  working in\t the factory\nThe Labour Court was therefore right in taking the view that\nbecause of  the non-obstante  clause s 64 read with Rule 100\nitself would  not apply to the respondents and they would be\nentitled to  claim overtime  wages under  s. 59\t of that Act\nread with  s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act,\n1948. [300 C-G]\n     The contention  that the  respondents were\t not workmen\nunder  the   Industrial\t Disputes  Act\tand  as\t such  their\napplication was\t not maintainable,  must  be  rejected.\t The\ncontention depends  upon the appreciation of evidence led by\nthe parties  on the nature of duties and functions performed\nby the\tconcerned respondents  and it was on an appreciation\nof the\tentire material\t that the  Labour Court\t recorded  a\nfinding that having regard to the nature of their duties and\nfunctions all respondents, other than those who were holding\nthe  posts  of\tSenior\tSupervisors  and  supervisors,\twere\nindustrial employees,  i. e.  workman under  the  Industrial\nDisputes Act  and it  is not  possible\tfor  this  Court  to\ninterfere with such a finding of fact recorded by the Labour\nCourt.\tEven   otherwise  after\t  considering  some  of\t the\nimportant material on record the court is satisfied that the\nLabour. Court's finding is correct. [301 C-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2736 of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Award dated  the 31st  December, 1971  of the
\nCentral Govt  Labour Court Bombay in application no. L.C.B.-
\n326 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Harbans Lal,  N. S.  Das Bahl  and R. N. Poddar for the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
     V.\t M.   Tarkunde,\t K.  Shivraj  Choudhary\t and  K.  R.
\nChoudhary for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n294<\/span>
\n     TULZAPURKAR, J.  The only\tpoint raised  by counsel for
\nthe Appellants in this appeal is whether the respondents who
\nare employees  working in  the\tFactory\t of  India  Security
\nPress, Nasik  are entitled  to over-time  wages at twice the
\nnormal rate  of their wages under s. 59 of the Factories Act
\n1948 read  with s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments
\nAct,  1948   and  the\tquestion  depends   upon  the\ttrue
\nconstruction of\t s. 70\tof the latter Act. Since in our view
\nthe question  of proper\t construction of  the said  s. 70 is
\nconcluded by  a decision  of this  Court in  Shri B.P. Hira,
\nWorks Manager,\tCentral Railway, Parel, Bombay, etc. v. Shri
\nC.M. Pradhan  etc.(1) it  is unnecessary  to indulge  in any
\nelaborate statement  of facts or discussion of all the rival
\ncontentions that  were urged  before the  Central Government
\nLabour Court Bombay, whose decision rendered on December 31,
\n1971 is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Briefly  stated  the  admitted  facts  are:  The  India
\nSecurity Press,\t Nasik is  a very  big establishment  of the
\nCentral Government  headed by  the General  Manager, who  is
\nalso known  as Master,\tIndia  Security\t Press.\t Apart\tfrom
\nadministrative offices\tit has a factory. The Press has four
\nwings, namely, (a) the stamp press, (b) currency note press,\n<\/p>\n
(c) new\t currency note\tpress and  (d) central stamp stores.
\nThere are  various  categories\tof  workers  who  have\tbeen
\nclassified into\t two groups such as (1) employees working in
\nthe administrative  offices and\t (2) those  working  in\t the
\nfactory. The  78 respondents,  belonging  to  all  the\tfour
\nwings, have been employees working in the factory (of these,
\nR-1 to\tR-3 are\t Chief Inspectors (Control); R-4 to R-36 are
\nInspectors (Control); R-37 & R-38 are Senior Supervisors; R-
\n39  to\tR-52  are  Supervisors;\t R-53  to  R-77\t are  Junior
\nSupervisors  and   R-78\t is   a\t Store\t Keeper).  These  78
\nRespondents filed  an  application  against  the  Appellants
\nbefore the  Central Government Labour Court, Bombay under s.
\n33C (2)\t of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming over-
\ntime wages under s. 59 of the Factories Act. read with s. 70
\nof the\tBombay Shops  and Establishments Act. Their case was
\nthat though the normal working period for all those who were
\nworking under  the roof of the factory was 44 hrs. per week,
\nthey were,  along with the regular factory workers, required
\nto work\t for more than 44 hrs. a week but the management had
\nbeen causing  loss  to\tthem  by  paying  them,\t unlike\t the
\nfactory-workers, over-time wages at the basic rates even for
\nwork done beyond 44 hrs. whereas they were entitled to over-
\ntime wages
\n295<\/span>
\nat double  the rate  of their  normal  wages  (inclusive  of
\ndearness allowance, etc.), and as such they were entitled to
\nget the\t amount of difference ascertained, computed and paid
\nto them; and they claimed this relief in respect of overtime
\nwork done during the past 12 years i.e. from 1-1-1956 to 30-
\n8-1968. Along  with the\t application they  gave\t a  detailed
\nschedule and  the particulars of their claim totalling to an
\namount of Rs. 7,00,000 and odd.\n<\/p>\n
     This claim\t was resisted  by the  Appellants on several
\ngrounds but  we need mention only those grounds which have a
\nbearing on  the only point that was raised and argued before
\nus  by\tcounsel\t for  the  appellants.\tInter  alia  it\t was
\ncontended that\tnone of the Respondents was a ‘worker’ under
\ns. 2  (i) of  the Factories  Act and  as such  they were not
\nentitled to the benefit of s. 59 of that Act read with s. 70
\nof the\tBombay Shops  and Establishments  Act, 1948.  It was
\nfurther contended  that even  assuming that  the respondents
\nwere entitled  to claim\t the benefit  of the s. 59 read with
\nthe s. 70 notwithstanding that none of them was a worker, by
\nreason of  Rule 100 made by the State Government in exercise
\nof its powers under s. 64 of the Factories Act, s. 59 became
\ninapplicable to\t the Respondents  and therefore could not be
\navailed of by them inasmuch as quite a substantial number of
\nthem fell  within  the\tcategory  of  person  who  had\tbeen
\n“defined or  declared to be holding positions of supervision
\nor management  or being\t employed in a confidential position
\nin the factory.” In other words. quite a large number of the
\nRespondents fell  within the  exempted category\t under s. 64
\nread with  Rule 100  framed by\tthe  State  Government\tand,
\ntherefore, the\tbenefit of  s. 59 was not available to them.
\nIt was\tfurther urged  that none  of the  Respondents was an
\nindustrial employee,  i.e. ‘a workman’ within the meaning of
\ns. 2  (s) of  the Industrial  Disputes Act and as such their
\napplication  under   s.\t 33C   (2)  of\t that  Act  was\t not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     The Central  Government Labour  Court, Bombay negatived
\nthe first  two contentions  in view  of the decision of this
\nCourt in  the case  of B.P. Hira v. C.M. Pradhan (supra) and
\nas regards  the third  contention on  an appreciation of the
\noral and documentary evidence led by the parties, it came to
\nthe conclusion\tthat all  respondents holding  the posts  of
\nChief  Inspectors   (Control)  (R-1   to  R-3),\t  Inspectors
\n(Control) (R-4\tto R-36),  Junior Supervisors (R-53 to R-57)
\nand Store  Keeper (R-78)  having regard\t to  the  nature  of
\nduties and  functions  performed  by  them  were  industrial
\nemployees i  e. workmen\t under the  Industrial Disputes Act,
\n1947 and as such were entitled to the relief claimed by them
\nbut as
\n296<\/span>
\nregards the respondents who were holding the posts of Senior
\nSupervisors (R-37  and R-38)  and Supervisors  (R-39 to R-5)
\nnot being workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act were not
\nentitled to  the relief claimed, of course, they were denied
\nthe relief  only for  the  period  during  which  they\twere
\nholding those  posts. This  decision is\t challenged  in\t the
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
     As stated\tearlier, the  validity or  otherwise of\t the
\nfirst two  contentions that  were urged\t before\t the  Labour
\nCourt and reiterated before us by Counsel for the appellants
\ndepends upon  the proper  construction of s.70 of the Bombay
\nShops  and   Establishments  Act,   1948  and  in  order  to
\nappreciate both\t the contentions it will be necessary to set
\nout s. 59, s. 64 together with Rule 100 of the Factories Act
\nand s.\t70 of  the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1918
\nSections 59 and 64 occur in Chapter VI of the Factories Act,
\n1948 and the material portions thereof run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “59. Extra  Wages for overtime.-(1) Where a worker
\n     works in  a factory for more than nine hours in any day
\n     or for  more than\tforty-eight hours  in any  week,  he
\n     shall, in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages
\n     at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages.”
\n\t  “64. Power  to make exempting rules, (1) The State
\n     Government may make rules defining the persons who hold
\n     positions of supervisions or management or are employed
\n     in a  confidential position in a factory, or empowering
\n     the Chief Inspector to declare any person, other than a
\n     person defined  by such  rules,  as  a  person  holding
\n     position of  supervision or management or employed in a
\n     confidential position  in a  factory if, in the opinion
\n     of the Chief Inspector, such person holds such position
\n     or is  so employed\t and the provisions of this Chapter,
\n     other than\t provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1)
\n     of section\t 66 and\t of the proviso to that sub-section,
\n     shall not apply to any person so defined or declared:
\n\t  Provided that\t any person  so defined\t or declared
\n     shall, where  the ordinary rate of wages of such person
\n     does not  exceed rupees  seven hundred  and  fifty\t per
\n     month,  be\t entitled  to  extra  wages  in\t respect  of
\n     overtime work under section 59.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Rule 100 framed under s. 64 runs thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
297<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Persons defined  to hold positions of supervision
\n\t  or management or confidential position.
\n\t  The following\t persons shall\tbe  deemed  to\thold
\n     position of supervision or management or to be employed
\n     in a confidential position in a factory-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  All persons specified in the Schedule annexed
\n\t       hereto.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  Any other  person who,  in the opinion of the
\n\t       Chief  Inspector,   holds   a   position\t  of
\n\t       supervision or management or is employed in a
\n\t       confidential position.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Schedule
\n\t  List of  persons  defined  to\t hold  positions  of
\n     supervision or management in factories:-
\n\t  Manager
\n\t  Assistant Manager
\n\t  …….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  …….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Departmental Heads and Assistants
\n\t  …….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Head Store Keepers and Assistants
\n\t  Technical Experts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 70\t of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act,
\n1948 runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “70. Persons employed in factory to be governed by
\n\t  Factories Act and not by this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Nothing in  this Act shall be deemed to apply to a
\n     factory and  the provisions  of the Factories Act, 1948
\n     shall, notwithstanding  anything contained in that Act,
\n     apply to all persons employed in and in connection with
\n     a factory:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided  that,   where  any\tshop  or  commercial
\n     establish-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
298<\/span><\/p>\n
     ment situate  within the  precincts of a factory is not
\n     connected with the manufacturing process of the factory
\n     the provisions of this Act shall apply to it:
\n\t  Provided further  that, the  State Government may,
\n     by notification  in the  official Gazette, apply all or
\n     any of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 to any
\n     shop or  commercial establishment\tsituate\t within\t the
\n     precincts of  a factory  and on the application of that
\n     Act to  such  shop\t or  commercial\t establishment,\t the
\n     provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Counsel for  the appellants urged that the respondents,
\nthough employed\t in the\t factory  of  the  Press,  were\t not
\n‘workers’ within  the meaning  of s.  2 (1) of the Factories
\nAct and\t therefore were not entitled to the benefit of s. 59
\nof that\t Act read  with\t s.  70\t of  the  Bombay  Shops\t and
\nEstablishments Act,  1948. On  the plain language of sec. 70
\nof the\tBombay Shops  and Establishments Act this contention
\nhas to\tfail. We  are  concerned  not  with  either  of\t the
\nprovisos but with the main provision of s. 70 which consists
\nof two\tparts; the  first part\tstates that  if there  be  a
\nfactory the  Shops and Establishments Act will not apply and
\nthe  second   part  states  that  to  such  a  factory\t“the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Factories\tAct  shall,  notwithstanding
\nanything  contained  in\t that  Act,  apply  to\tall  persons
\nemployed in  or in  connection with a factory.” Clearly, the
\nportion underlined  (the non-obstante  clause and the phrase
\n‘all persons  employed’) has  the effect  of  enlarging\t the
\nscope of  Factories Act\t by  making  it\t applicable  to\t all
\npersons employed  in such  factory irrespective\t of  whether
\nemployed as  workers or\t otherwise. Therefore  although\t the
\nrespondents have  not been  ‘workers’ within  the meaning of
\nsec. 2 (1) they will get the benefit of\t sec. 59.\n<\/p>\n
     This identical  question arose for consideration before
\nthis Court in the case of B.P. Hira v. C.M. Pradhan (supra).
\nIn that\t case Shri  C.M. Pradhan  and other respondents were
\nemployed as  time-keepers in  the time office of the Central
\nRailway Workshop  and Factory,\tParel, Bombay  and they\t had
\nclaimed over-time  wages under\ts.59 of\t the  Factories\t Act
\nfirst on  the basis  that they\twere  ‘workers’\t within\t the
\nmeaning of s 2(1) of that Act and alternatively on the basis
\nthat assuming  they were not ‘workers’ within the meaning of
\ns. 2(1)\t of that  Act, they  were entitled to claim overtime
\nwages under  s.59 of the Factories Act read with s.70 of the
\nBombay Shops  and Establishments  Act, 1948. The validity of
\nthe
\n299<\/span>
\nclaim on  both the  grounds was\t disputed by  the  appellant
\n(Works Manager).  The Authority\t under the  Payment of Wages
\nAct found  that only  four  of\tthe  respondents,  who\twere
\nrequired to do the work of progress time-keeper, could claim
\nthe status of ‘workers’ within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the
\nFactories Act  and the\trest were  merely employees  of\t the
\nworkshop, but  accepted the  alternative case  ‘made by\t the
\nrespondents and\t held  that  each  of  the  respondents\t was
\nentitled to  get the over-time wages under sec. 59 read with
\nsec. 70\t and this Court upheld the view of the Authority and
\nconfirmed its  decision. The  Court’s  view  on\t the  proper
\nconstruction of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments
\nAct 1948  has been  succinctly summarized in the second head
\nnote, which  appears at\t page 137  of the report, which runs
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “On a\t proper construction  of s. 70 of the Act it
\n     is clear  that the first part of the section excludes a
\n     factory and  its employees\t from the  operation of\t the
\n     Act; but  the second part makes the relevant provisions
\n     of the  Factories Act  applicable\tto  them.  The\tnon-
\n     obstante clause in the section shows that the employees
\n     in a factory, although they might not be workers within
\n     the meaning  of s.\t 2(1)  of  the\tFactories  Act,\t are
\n     entitled to  claim overtime  wages as  provided for  by
\n     that Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Apart from the fact that the decision is binding on us,
\nwe are\tin respectful agreement with the construction placed
\nby it  on s.  70 of  the  Act.\tThe  first  contention\thas,
\ntherefore, to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for  the appellants  next urged that the effect
\nof s.  70 as  indicated by the aforesaid decision is that it
\nmakes the  provisions of the Factories Act applicable to all
\npersons (irrespective  of  their  capacity)  employed  in  a
\nfactory\t but  the  provisions  of  the\tAct  include  s.  64
\n(occurring in  the same Chapter VI) which gives power to the
\nState Government  to make  exemptions and  it is under s. 64
\nthat Rule 100 has been framed by the State Govt. under which
\nthe employees  specified in  the Schedule  to the  Rule have
\nbeen excluded  from the\t purview of  s. 59  of that  Act and
\nsince in  the instant  case  a\tsubstantial  number  of\t the
\nrespondents fall  within the exempted category (Departmental
\nHeads and  Assistants) and  Head Storekeepers  and Assistant
\nthey would  not be  able to claim overtime wages under s. 59
\nof that\t Act read  with\t s.  70\t of  the  Bombay  Shops\t and
\nEstablishments Act.  In other  words, counsel contended that
\ns. 59  must, be\t read with  s. 64  of the  Factories Act and
\nbecause of  Rule 100  framed under  s.\t64,  s.\t 59  becomes
\ninapplicable to the respondents
\n300<\/span>
\nfalling within\tthe exempted  categories On  the other hand,
\ncounsel for  the respondents  urged  that  the\tnon-obstante
\nclause has  the\t effect\t of  keeping  out  of  the  way\t the
\nexemption provisions,  namely, s.  64 read with Rule 100 and
\naccording to  him such\teffect must follow from the ratio of
\nthis Court’s  decision in  case of B.P. Hira v. C.M. Pradhan
\n(supra) and the Labour Court had rightly taken the view that
\nbecause of the non-obstante clause the respondents’ right to
\nclaim benefit  of overtime  wages under s 59 read with s. 70
\nwas not\t affected by  the framing  of rule  100 by the State
\nGovernment in exercise of the power conferred on it under s.\n<\/p>\n
64.
\n     Section 70, so far as is relevant, says “the provisions
\nof  the\t  Factories  Act   shall,  notwithstanding  anything
\ncontained in  that Act, apply to all persons employed in and
\nin connection  with a factory”. It is well-known that a non-
\nobstnte clause\tis a  legislative device  which\t is  usually
\nemployed to  give over-riding  effect to  certain provisions
\nover some  contrary provisions\tthat may  be found either in
\nthe same  enactment or some other enactment, that is to say,
\nto  avoid   the\t operation   and  effect   of  all  contrary
\nprovisions. Thus  the non-obstante  clause in s. 70, namely,
\n“notwithstanding   anything   in   that\t  Act”\t must\tmean
\nnotwithstanding anything  to the  contrary contained in that
\nAct and\t as such  it must  refer to the exempting provisions
\nwhich would  be contrary to the general applicability of the
\nAct. In\t other words,  as all the relevant provisions of the
\nAct  are   made\t applicable  to\t a  factory  notwithstanding
\nanything to  the contrary  contained in it, it must have the
\neffect\tof   excluding\tthe   operation\t of   the  exemption
\nprovisions. Just  as because  of the non-obstante clause the
\nAct is applicable even to employees in the factory who might
\nnot be\t‘workers’ under\t sec. 2(1),  the  same\tnon-obstante
\nclause\twill   keep  away  the\tapplicability  of  exemption
\nprovisions qua\tall those working in the factory. The Labour
\nCourt, in our view, was, therefore, right in taking the view
\nthat because of the non-obstante clause s. 64 read with Rule
\n100 itself would not apply to the respondents and they would
\nbe entitled  to claim overtime wages under s. 59 of that Act
\nread with  s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act,
\n1948.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for  the appellants  pointed out  that if\tsuch
\nconstruction was  placed  on  s.  70  it  will\tlead  to  an
\nanomalous  situation   that  even  employees  of  a  factory
\noccupying positions  of a Manager or a General Manager would
\nbecome entitled\t to overtime wages which could not have been
\nthe intention  of the  State Legislature,  but that,  in our
\nview, is  a matter  of the State Legislature and not for the
\nCourt but it must be pointed out that since
\n301<\/span>
\nthe rendering  of the  aforesaid decision  by this  Court in
\n1960 the State Legislature has not intervened, which perhaps
\nsuggests that the State Legislature is not keen to limit the
\noperation of  the non-obstante\tclause in  any\tmanner.\t The
\nsecond contention must also fail.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for  the appellants  made a  feeble attempt  to
\ncontend that  not merely  such of  the respondents  who were
\nholding the posts of Senior Supervisors and Supervisors were
\nnot industrial\temployees but all the other respondents were
\nalso not  industrial employees\ti.e. were  not workmen under
\nthe  Industrial\t Disputes  Act.\t In  the  first\t place,\t the
\ncontention depends  upon the appreciation of evidence led by
\nthe parties  on the nature of duties and functions performed
\nby the\tconcerned respondents  and it was on an appreciation
\nthe entire material that the Labour Court recorded a finding
\nthat having  regard  to\t the  nature  of  their\t duties\t and
\nfunctions all respondents, other than those who were holding
\nthe  post   of\tSenior\tSupervisors  and  Supervisors,\twere
\nindustrial employees,  i.e.  workmen  under  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act  and it  is not  possible\tfor  this  Court  to
\ninterfere with such a finding of fact recorded by the Labour
\nCourt.\tEven   otherwise  after\t  considering  some  of\t the
\nimportant material  on record through which we were taken by
\ncounsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the Labour
\nCourt’s finding is correct.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result the\t appeal fails  and is  dismissed but
\nthere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n302<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1022, 1984 SCR (3) 292 Author: V Tulzapurkar Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: G.M. KOKIL AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/03\/1984 BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. PATHAK, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1984-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-03T12:50:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T12:50:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\"},\"wordCount\":3068,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T12:50:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-03T12:50:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984","datePublished":"1984-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T12:50:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984"},"wordCount":3068,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984","name":"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T12:50:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-g-m-kokil-and-others-on-21-march-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Another vs G.M. Kokil And Others on 21 March, 1984"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}