http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURESH C. BASKEY & ORS.ETC.ETC.(WITH C.A. NO. 4347/1993 & SL

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1995

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  849            JT 1995 (9)   661  1995 SCALE  (6)328

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Kuldip Singh,J.      The question before the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench  (the Tribunal)  was  whether  the  employees (workmen) working in the Government-Mint, Alipur, Calcutta - who were  allottees of  Government accommodation and as such were not  being paid house rent allowance - were entitled to compute the over-time allowance payable to them after taking into  account,   nationally,  the   element  of  house  rent allowance. Following  its earlier  decision in OA 13 of 1987 (decided on  April  17,  1990)  the  Tribunal  answered  the question by the impugned judgment dated September 6, 1990 in the affirmative  and decided  the  same  in  favour  of  the employees. This appeal, by the Union of India is against the judgment of the Tribunal.      It is  not necessary  for us  to go  into the chequered history of  litigation on the question whether the employees of Government-Mint were entitled to the over-time allowance. It is  not disputed  before us  that the  employees  of  the Government-Mint who  come within  the definition  of workmen under the  Factories Act,  1948 (the  Act) are  entitled  to extra wages for over-time under Section 59 of the Act. It is further not  disputed that  all those employees who have not been allotted Government accommodation and are in receipt of house rent  allowance are  entitled to commute the over-time allowance  by   including  house  rent  allowance  into  the "ordinary rate  of wages."  The short  question before us is whether  the   employees  who   are   occupying   Government accommodation and  as such  are not  being paid  house  rent allowance, are  entitled to  compute the  "ordinary rate  of wages"  by  nationally  adding  the  amount  of  house  rent allowance which  they would  have got,  had  they  not  been allotted the Government accommodation.      The   Tribunal   accepted   the   contention   of   the respondents-applicants before  it that they were entitled to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

similar  relief  as  was  given  to  the  employees  of  the Government-Mint in  OA 13  of 1987. On the concession of the learned counsel for the Union of India, the Tribunal allowed the application by the impugned order in the following terms      "Mr. C.R.  Bag very fairly concedes that      the facts  of this  case  are  identical      with those  in OA  13 of  87 (Nirmal Ch.      Bhowmich & Ors VS Union of India & Ors)           In that  view  of  the  matter,  we      dispose  of   this  application  at  the      admission stage  itself with a direction      to the  respondents to  dispose  of  the      representation of  the applicants  dated      8.12.86 (Annexure-C) in the light of the      aforesaid  two  judgments  and  pass  an      appropriate  order   giving   the   same      benefits within 60 days from today."      We may, therefore, examine the judgment of the Tribunal in OA  13 of  1987. It  would be  useful  to  reproduce  the operative part of the judgment:      "It is  the grievance  of the applicants      that although  an order has been made on      11th  November,   1985  directing   that      overtime should  be calculated inclusive      of house rent allowance, the respondents      are  not  implementing  the  same.  This      application  has   been  taken  out  for      implementation of  the order  dated 11th      November, 1985  read  with  order  dated      28th  September,  1984  and  Mint  Diary      Order  No.130/84   dated  26th  October,      1984.           Mr. Samir  Ghosh appearing  for the      applicants  invites   my  attention   to      annexure  ‘A’   at  page   22   of   the      application which  is the  letter  dated      11th November,  1985. The subject matter      of  this   letter  is   "Computation  of      Overtime  allowance   on  the  basis  of      emoluments    including    house    rent      allowance   -    payment   of    arrears      regarding...". This  letter is addressed      to  The  General  Manager,  India  Govt.      Mint, Bombay/Hyderabad/Calcutta  and  is      written by  the Under  Secretary to  the      Govt. Of  India,  Ministry  of  Finance,      Department  of  Economic  Affairs.  This      letter reads as follows:-           "I  am   directed  to   convey  the      approval of the Govt. of India, Ministry      of  Finance,   Department  of   Economic      Affairs, for  making payments of arrears      of  overtime   allowance  from  1.1.1956      onwards  on   the  basis  of  emoluments      including house  rent  allownce  to  the      industrial  employees  as  well  as  the      classified staff of the India Government      Mints at Bombay, Calcutta and Hyderabad.                xx    xx    xx           This issues  with the  approval  of      IFA in  the department  vide their  U.O.      No. 3825/IFA/85 dated 7.11.1985."      The letter dated 28th September, 1984 at      page 23  of the application is addressed      to Shri  H.N.  Gupta,  General  Manager,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    India Govt.  Mint, Calcutta. Paragraph 1      of this letter states as follows:-           "Please refer to the correspondence      resting with  our letter  of even number      dated   28th    June,   1984   regarding      computation of  O.T.A on  the  basis  of      emoluments including H.R.A. addressed to      the General Manager, India Govt. Mint, a      copy of which has been endorsed to you."      The  third   letter   annexed   to   the      application at  page 24  is  dated  26th      October, 1984,  the  subject  matter  of      which  is  -  "Computation  of  overtime      allowance on  the  basis  of  emoluments      including house  rent allowance for work      between 37 1/2 and 48 hours a day". This      letter records as follows:-           "Computation of  overtime allowance      on the  basis  of  emoluments  including      house   rent    allowance   was    under      consideration  of   the  Government   of      India,  Ministry   of  Finance  (D.E.A.)      since quite  some time.  It has now been      decided by  the Government that overtime      allowance will  be computed on the basis      of  emoluments   including  house   rent      allowance with effect from 9th May, 1984      for work done between 37 1/2 hours to 48      hours  per   week  in   respect  of  all      employees of the three (3) Mints." Going      through    the    annexures    to    the      application, the  correctness  of  which      has   not    been   disputed    by   the      respondents, I  have no doubt in my mind      that overtime  allowance payable  to the      applicants must be computed inclusive of      house rent allowance."      The Tribunal,  thereafter, allowed OA 13 of 1987 in the following terms :      "In view of the facts stated above, this      application is  allowed. The respondents      are  directed  to  give  effect  to  the      Government Order  dated  11th  November,      1985  read   with   order   dated   28th      September, 1984  and  Mint  Diary  Order      No.130/84 dated  26th October,  1984, as      appended  in   annexure   ‘A’   of   the      application collectively,  so far as the      applicants are concerned the respondents      are directed  to draw  and disburse  the      overtime allowance  in terms of the said      order. This  order  should  be  complied      with within  three months from date. All      arrears payable to the applicant be paid      to them within the said period.           Matter is  disposed of.  There will      be no order as to costs." Special leave  petition 4854 of 1990 filed against the above quoted judgment  of the  Tribunal  in  OA  13  of  1987  was dismissed  by  this  Court  on  February  26,  1990  by  the following order:      "We  find  no  grounds  to  condone  the      delay.  Interlocutory   application  for      condonation  of   delay  is   dismissed.      Consequently, the special leave petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    is dismissed as barred by time."      The judgment  of the  Tribunal in  OA 13  of 1987 shows that  the  Tribunal,  after  quoting  the  three  Government instructions, directed  the Union of India to give effect to the said  instructions. It  is no  doubt  correct  that  the Government instructions specifically provide that "over-time allowance will  be  computed  on  the  basis  of  emoluments including house rent allowance", but it is no where provided in the  said instructions  that even those employees who are occupying Government  houses and  as such are not being paid the house rent allowance, are also entitled to include House Rent Allowance,  nationally, in their wages for the purposes of computing  the over-time  allowance. We  are of  the view that on the plain reading of the instructions relied upon by the Tribunal  it is  not possible  to interpret  the same to mean that  the employees  of  the  Government-Mint  who  are occupying Government accommodation and as such are not being paid house rent allowance, are entitled to compute the over- time allowance  by including  the  house  rent  allowance  - nationally -  in their emoluments. Since the Tribunal in tis judgment in  OA 13  of 1987 did not interpret the Government instructions the  same shall  be read  in the  light of  the interpretation given by us.      This Court on July 26, 1994 passed the following order:      "C.A. No.1837/91 This appeal is directed      against  the  judgment  of  the  Central      Administrative Tribunal,  Calcutta Bench      dated  September   6,   1990   in   O.A.      No.983/90. The  Tribunal in  turn relied      upon  its   earlier  judgment   in  O.A.      No.13/87 decided  on September  1, 1989.      Special  Leave   Petition  against   the      judgment  of   the  Tribunal   in   O.A.      No.13/87 was  dismissed by this Court on      the ground of delay.           Since this  Court has granted leave      to appeal  against the  judgment of  the      Calcutta Bench  in O.A.  No.983/90,  the      matter has  to  be  finally  decided  on      merits. There  is a  connected appeal on      the same  point from the judgment of the      Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay.           We are Prima facie of the view that      any decision  on  merits  in  these  two      appeals  is   likely   to   affect   the      respondents in  SLP (C)... (CC No.23481)      filed  against   the  judgment   of  the      Central     Administrative     Tribunal,      Calcutta Bench,  in O.A.  No.13/87.  The      Special leave  petition was dismissed on      the ground  of  delay  on  February  26,      1990. We  direct the  Registry to  issue      notices to  the respondents in S.L.P.(C)      No...(CC No.23481)  which was  dismissed      on February  26, 1990.  The notice shall      be returnable  on September 7, 1994. The      Union of  India to  obtain dasti process      in addition to serve those respondets".      In response  to the  above  quoted  order,  Nirmal  Ch. Bhowmich has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondents in SLP 4854/90.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a  bare reading  of the  Government instructions relied upon by the Tribunal goes to show that the said instructions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

do  not  give  any  right  to  the  respondents  and  others similarly situated to have the house rent amount included in their emoluments  for the  purpose  of  computing  over-time allowance.      Even otherwise  the Government  instructions have to be read in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The claim of the respondents for grant of over-time allowance is based on Section 59 of the Act. Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 59 of the Act, which are relevant, are as under :      "Extra wages for over-time - (1) Where a      worker works  in a factory for more than      nine hours  in any  day or for more than      forty eight hours in any week, he shall,      in respect of overtime work, be entitled      to  wages  at  the  rate  of  twice  his      ordinary rate of wages.           (2) For the purposes of sub-section      (1), ‘ordinary  rate of wages’ means the      basic  wages   plus   such   allowances,      including the  cash  equivalent  of  the      advantage    accruing     through    the      concessional   sale    to   workers   of      foodgrains and  other articles,  as  the      worker is  for the  time being  entitled      to, but  does not  include a  bonus  and      wages for overtime work".      The over-time allowance has to be computed on the basis of the  "ordinary rate of wages". Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of  the Act  defines "ordinary rate of wages" to mean the basic wages  plus such  allowances as  the worker is for the time being  entitled to,  but does not include the bonus and wages for  over-time work. In other words, the ordinary rate of wages  is the  basic wages plus the allowances to which a worker is  entitled for  the time  being. If a worker is not entitled to  a  particular  allowance  the  same  cannot  be included in  the "ordinary  rate of  wages". In  the present case, admittedly,  the respondents  are not  entitled to the house rent allowance and as such the same cannot be included while determining  the ordinary  rate of  wages. It would be wholly fallacious to include an allowance ‘nationally’ which has been  excluded  specifically.  The  legislature  in  its wisdom  included   the  cash  equivalent  of  the  advantage accruing  through   the  concessional  sale  to  workers  of foodgrains and other articles in the definition of "ordinary rate of  wages’. The  legislature has not done so in respect of the house rent allowance.      We respectfully  agree with  the law  laid down by this Court  in  Govind  Bapu  Salvi  and  Others  vs.  Vishwanath Janardhan Joshi and Others 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 148 and in The Master of the Mint vs. Kashi Nath Dutta and another, in C.A. Nos. 2376-2377/77 decided on October 31, 1995.      We are  inclined to  agree with the learned counsel for the  appellant   that  despite  the  respondents  getting  a slightly lessor  rate for  computing the over-time allowance they are  placed in  an advantageous position as compared to those who are not in occupation of Government accommodation. In the  additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India,  multiple  benefits  which  accrue  to  a  Government employee, who  is allotted  Government  accommodation,  have been shown as under :      "Government                Private      Accommodation             Accommodation      (1) Nominal Licence fee  exorbitant rent       upto 10% of basis pay    incremental at                                the mercy of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

                              landlord.      (2) No HRA payable       -HRA admissible                              approx Rs. 250/-                             for this category                             of employees.      (3) In the vincity of  -Far from Mint.      (4) No expenditure    -some expenditure          on transport.     on transport and                            inconvenience.      (5) Little time taken -some time taken          to reach Mint     to reach Mint.      (6) Free maintenance  -minor maintenance          by      Government            has to be attended                            by the allottee -                            all other mainten-                            ance by the land-                            lord at his                            convenience.      (7) One can live till -at the mercy of          age of superannu-  landlord.          ation and 6 months          thereafter.      (8) In case of ’die in  -No such          harness’ the quarte provisions          is allotted to      exists.          deceased dependent.      We, therefore,  hold that  the respondents  and  others employees  of   the  Government-Mint   who   are   occupying Government accommodation  are not  entitled to  include  the house rent  allowance as  a part  of the  "ordinary rate  of wages" for computing the over-time allowance.      We allow  the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the  Tribunal. We, however, direct that the respondets or other employees  of the  Government-Mint similarly  situated who have  already been  paid over-time allowance in terms of the Tribunal  judgments shall  not be  asked to  refund  the same.      In OA  13  of  1987  the  Tribunal  directed  that  the Government instructions  relied  upon  by  the  Tribunal  be implemented.  Since   we  have  interpreted  the  Government instructions and  also the  provisions of  Section 59 of the Act, it  would be  in the  interest of  justice that the law laid down  by us  be made applicable to the applicants in OA 13 of  1987 (respondents  in SLP 4854/90) prospectively from the date of this judgment. No costs.