Skip to main content

Are you working overtime? Know these Laws!

 Ever slept in the Office working overtime? Wanting to reach the company target or have loads of pending work to complete? Overtime working is a very common thing in a corporate sector. Whether it is to meet the deadline or because of a demanding work or you simply wish to influence the management team that you are working hard, you agree to work for fifteen hours a day or so and forgo anything resembling a normal life.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


Working overtime refers to the time in excess of one’s regular working hours. In India, normal working hours constitute 8-9 hours per day and 48 hours per week. Generally, if someone is working more than the normal working hours, one is eligible to get compensation for the same.


In many Employment agreements, it is normally stated that an employee must work for extra hours as required by the company. Working overtime must be at the discretion of an employee, not forced down by an agreement.

 


Laws governing Overworking Schedules

There are several Acts governing overtime and overhead payment. The laws that concern your overtime working hours and payment regarding the same are shared as follows:


Factories Act, 1948

Generally, the working hours stated by the Factories Act, 1948 is taken as a typical period.  According to Section 59 of the Act, no one is supposed to work beyond 8-9 hours per day and according to Section 51, no is supposed to work for more than 48-50 hours in a week.


Consult: Top Labour & Service Lawyers in India


Minimum Wages Act,1948

Under Sec. 33, it is mentioned that for overtime, wages are to be paid at the rate of twice the ordinary rates of wages of the worker. The employer can take actual work on any day up to 9 hours in a 12 hours shift, but he must pay double the rates for an hour or part of an hour of actual work in excess of nine hours or for more than 48 hours in any week.


Sec. 14 of the Act, any worker whose minimum rate of wages is fixed with wage period of time, such as by hour, by the day or by any such period and if a worker works more than that number of hours, it is considered to be overtime. In case if the number of hours constituting a normal working day exceeds the given limit, then the employer will have to pay him for every hour or for part of an hour for which he has worked in excess at the overtime rate.


Mines Act, 1952

Under Sec. 28 to 30 of the Act, no person employed in a mine shall be required or allowed to work in the mine for more than 10 hours in any day inclusive of overtime.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966

Sec. 17 & 18 of the Act, stipulates that the period of work including overtime work should not exceed 10 hours in a day and 54 hours in a week.


Plantation Labour Act, 1951

According to section 19, where an adult worker works in any plantation on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day or for more than 48 hours in any week, he/she shall, in respect of such overtime work, be entitled to twice the rates of ordinary wages. Provided that no such worker shall be allowed to work for more than 9 hours on any day and more than 54 hours in any week. 


Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment Service) Act, 1996

According to 28 & 29 of the Act, it is mentioned that a worker who is working overtime will be paid overtime wages at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wages.


Consult: Top Labour & Service Lawyers in India


Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970

As per Rule 79 of the Act, it is compulsory for every contractor to maintain a Register of Overtime which shall contain all details relating to overtime calculation, hours of extra work, the name of the employee, etc.


Working Journalist (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955

As per Rule 10 of the Act, it is mentioned that a working journalist who works for more than 6 hours on any day in day shift and more than 5½ hours in night shift shall be compensated with rest hours equal to hours for which he/she has worked overtime.


Women and Overtime Working hours

Section 66 of the Factories Act, 1948 imposes a restriction on the employment of women to work between 7.00 pm to 6.00 am. However, this can be relaxed by Chief Inspector, but if the relaxation done exceeds the normal period of Working hours, they are to be paid for overtime hours and they are not permitted to work between 10.00 pm to 5.00 am.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


In case they are required to work beyond 10 pm, it is mandatory to provide for special arrangement for the protection of the female employees working before 6 AM and after 8.30 PM, including transport facility. The arrangement of lockers and restroom should be made available for all female employees and they cannot be asked to come for night shift for more than 15 days.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more