54. DAILY HOURS.

Subject to the provisions of section 51, not adult worker shall be required or
allowed to work in a factory for more than nine hours in any day:
1
[Provided that, subject to the previous approval of the Chief Inspector, the
daily maximum specified in this section may be exceeded in order to
facilitate the change of shifts.]

1. Added by Act 25 of 1954, sec. 10 (w.e.f. 7-5-1954).

55. INTERVALS FOR REST. 1

(1)2 The periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period
shall exceed five hours and that no worker shall work for more than five hours before he has had
an interval for rest of at least half an hour.
3

(2) The State Government or, subject to the control of the State Government, the Chief
Inspector, may, by written order and for the reasons specified therein, exempt any factory from
the provisions of sub-section (1) so however that the total number of hours worked by a worker
without an interval does not exceed six.
comments
The well settled principle of law that unless the statute either expressly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime the accused should not be found
guilty of an offence is also applicable to cases under the Factories Act. Absence of mens rea is
good defence in contravention of section 55; State of Orissa v. Bahinipall, AIR 1965 Ori 164.
1. Section 55 re-numbered as sub-section (1) of that section by Act 25 of 1954, sec. 11 (w.e.f.
7-5-1954).
2. Subs. by Act 40 of 1949, sec. 3 and Sch. II, for The period (w.e.f. 1-5-1949).
3. Added by Act 25 of 1954, sec. 11 (w.e.f. 7-5-1954).

56. SPREADOVER. The periods of work of an adult worker in a factory shall be so arranged that
inclusive of his intervals for rest under section 55, they shall not spreadover more
than ten and a half hours in any day : Provided that the Chief Inspector may, for
reasons to be specified in in writing, increase the spreadover up to twelve hours.
-

1. Subs. by Act 94 of 1976, sec. 24, for spread over to twelve hours (w.e.f. 26-10-1976).

57. NIGHT SHIFTS. Where a worker in a factory works on a shift which extends beyond midnight, (a) for the purposes of sections 52 and 53, a holiday for a whole day shall mean in his case a
period of twenty-four consecutive hours beginning when his shift ends;
(b) the following day for him shall be deemed to be the period of twenty-four hours beginning
when such shift ends, and the hours he has worked after midnight shall be counted in the
previous day.

58. PROHIBITION OF OVERLAPPING SHIFTS. (1) Work shall not be carried on in any factory by means of a system of shifts so arranged that
more than one relay of workers is engaged, in work of the same kind at the same time.
1

(2) The State Government or subject to the control of the State Government, the Chief Inspector,
may, by written order and for the reasons specified therein, exempt on such conditions as may be
deemed expedient, any factory or class or description of factories or any department or section of
a factory or any category or description of workers therein from the provisions of sub-section (1).

1. Subs. by Act 25 of 1954, sec. 12, for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 7-5-1954).

59. EXTRA WAGES FOR OVERTIME. (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.
1

(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.
(3) Where any workers in a factory are paid on a piece-rate basis, the time rate shall be deemed
to be equivalent to the daily average of their full-time earnings for the days on which they
actually worked on the same or identical job during the month immediately preceding the
calendar month during which the overtime work was done, and such time rates shall be deemed
to be the ordinary rates of wages of those workers :
Provided that in the case of a worker who has not worked in the immediately preceding calendar
month on the same or identical job, the time rate shall be deemed to be equivalent to the daily

average of the earnings of the worker for the days on which he actually worked in the week in
which the overtime work was done.
Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, in computing the earnings for the days on
which the worker actually worked 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, shall be included but any bonus or wages for
overtime work payable in relation to the period with reference to which the earnings are being
computed shall be excluded.
2

(4) The cash equivalent of the advantage accruing through the concessional sale to a worker of
foodgrains and other articles shall be computed as often as may be prescribed on the basis of the
maximum quantity of foodgrains and other articles admissible to a standard family.
Explanation 1 : Standard family means a family consisting of the worker, his or her spouse and
two children below the age of fourteen years requiring in all three adult consumption units.
Explanation 2 : Adult consumption unit means the consumption unit of a male above the age of
fourteen years; and the consumption unit of a female above the age of fourteen years and that of
a child below the age of fourteen years shall be calculated at the rates of 0.8 and 0.6 respectively
of one adult consumption unit.
(5) The State Government may make rules prescribing (a) the manner in which the cash equivalent of the advantage accruing through the concessional
sale to a worker of foodgrains and other articles shall be computed; and
(b) the registers that shall be maintained in a factory for the purpose of securing compliance
with the provisions of this section.
comments
Section 59 creates an obligation on the employer to pay extra wages for overtime if a worker
works for more than 9 hours in any day or for more than 48 hours in any week; National Textile
Corporation (D.P.& R.) Ltd., Unit Mahalaxmi Mills, Beawar v. Labour Court, Jaipur, 1997
LLR 518.
1. Subs. by Act 94 of 1976, sec. 25, for sub-sections (2) and (3) (w.e.f. 26-10-1976).
2. Subs. by Act 25 of 1954, sec. 13, for sub-section (4) (w.e.f. 7-5-1954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Factories Act, 1948

Section 59 in The Factories Act, 1948
Section 51 in The Factories Act, 1948
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 54 in The Factories Act, 1948
Citedby 3 docs
Smt. Shalini Wd/O Gangadhar ... vs Prakash S/O Gangadhar Hedaoo
on 1 December, 1992
Manohar Bhatia vs P.K. Raghavan
on 7 April, 2004
Dbh International Ltd., A Company ... vs Their Workmen,
Represented By The ...
on 9 March, 2005
User Queries
industrial disputes act
factories act
labour court
overtime
"overtime work"
industrial disputes
mhlj
factories act doctypes:judgments
worker
"industrial disputes act"
labour court doctypes:judgments
section 14
industrial disputes act doctypes: judgments
section 51
basic wages
"ordinary rate of wages"
working hours
industrial disputes doctypes: judgments
thakur doctypes:judgments
factories act section 59 doctypes:judgments

Bombay High Court

Model Mills, Nagpur vs Labour Court, Nagpur And Others on 17 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1993) IILLJ 51 Bom, 1992 (1) MhLj 904
Bench: M Deshpande
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges
the order passed by the Labour court Nagpur on May 10, 1985 under Section 33-C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing payment of overtime wages at a rate double
than the ordinary rate of wages purportedly under Section 59 of the Factories Act.
2.38 employees of the petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act for the recovery of difference in overtime wages which they were entitled to under
Section 59 of the Factories Act and those actually paid from the year 1960 to December 1978.
Overtime wages were paid to the 38 employees who were working as clerks up to May 1973 at
the rate which was prescribed by Mangalmurti Award and from June 1, 1973 onwards they have
been paid overtime wages at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wage as per Section 59 of the
Factories Act, rate 11/2 times the ordinary rate of wages for the overtime work put in between 42
and 48 hours and twice the ordinary rate of wages for overtime work put in beyond 48 hours per
week.
3. The Labour Court did not accept the contention that the overtime between 42 and 48 hours
could not be overtime in view of the provisions of the Factories Act, but that contention raised in
this behalf before the Labour Court was not pursued by Shri R. B. Puranik, the learned counsel
for the petitioner. His contention was that as there was noprovisions under the Indian Factories
Act regarding the payment to be made for overtime wages for the overtime work less than 48
hours per week, the respondents were not entitled to be paid at that rate for the overtime work
between 42 and 48 hours, but they were entitled to be paid at the rate specified by Mangalmurti
Award which was equal to the ordinary basic wage. According to him, it was only the overtime
work which was put in excess of 48 hours that would come within the purview of Section 59 of
the Factories Act for which overtime wage at double the ordinary wage would become payable.
On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that having regard to the
provisions of the Indian Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder any overtime work
beyond 42 hours of the prescribed weekly hours which was to be put in by the employees would
come within the purview of Section 59 of the Factories Act obligating the petitioner to pay
double the rate of ordinary wages for the overtime work put in.
4. It is necessary to notice the provisions of the Factories Act which have a bearing on the points
raised. Under Section 51 of the Factories Act, no adult worker shall be required or allowed to
work in a factory for more than 48 hours in any week and under Section 54 subject to the
provisions of Section 51, no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for
more than nine hours in any day, provided that subject to the previous approval of the Chief
Inspector, the daily maximum specified in the Section may be exceeded in order to facilitate the
change of shifts. Section 59 makes provision for extra wages for overtime and under sub-section
(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 to overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of

twice his ordinary rate of wages. Sub-section (2) provides that for the purpose of sub-section (1),
ordinary rate of wages means the basic wages plus such allowances, including 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.
5. According to Shri. Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondents, the statutory limit referred
to in sub-section (1) of Section 59 should be understood in the context of Rule 96 of the
Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 under which for any work done by a worker beyond the
normal specified period of work he should be issued overtime slips indicating the actual period
of overtime worked by him, though in place of such daily slips the Chief Inspector may permit
weekly slips to be issued.
6. It is important to notice that Section 51 only puts a maximum limit on the hours of work for
which the worker shall be allowed to work in a factory that being 48 hours in a week and Section
54 requires that the daily work shall not exceed 9 hours in any day. Both these provisions permit
the employer to substitute for the day or for the week such hours of work which would fall
within the maximum limits provided. Rule 96 describes the hours of work which may be
prescribed for the day or for the week by the employer as the normal specified period of work. It
is, therefore, clear that though Section 59 may not directly refer to such extra hours of work, over
and above the normal specified period of work the extra work which is put in beyond the normal
specified period will be overtime work. This position is settled by the decision of the Supreme
Court in 1985 (2) Labour Law Journal 33, M/s. Philips India v. Labour Court, Madras, where it
has been laid down while examining the provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments
Act, 1947 that even though the expression "overtime" is not defined in the Act, its connotation is
unambiguous and in no uncertain terms it means in the context of working hours, the period in
excess of the working hours. Shri R. B. Puranik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that
in view of the decision of the Supreme Court which was not available when the Labour Court
decided this matter, he would proceed on the basis that the work beyond 42 hours which is
prescribed by the petitioner, but is less than 48 hours as prescribed by Section 51 of the Factories
Act would be overtime and that wages shall have to be paid for this period of overtime work, but
in his submission, they would not be at the same rate as prescribed by Section 59 of the Factories
Act i.e. at a rate double than the ordinary rate of wages.
6A. This question was also considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. There the
employers M/s. Philips India and State Bank of India had prescribed the rate of overtime wages
at 1 1/2 times of ordinary wages for overtime work in excess of its prescribed hours of work and
up to the maximum permissible under the Statue and that rate was not interfered with.
7. The submission of Shri Thakur is that the scheme of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments
Act, 1947 is materially different from that of the Factories Act and he in particular referred to
Section 14(1) of that Act which runs as follows :
"Daily and weekly hours of work (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, no person employed in
any establishment shall be required or allowed to work for more then eight hours in any day and
forty-eight hours in any week :
Provided that any such person may be allowed to work in such establishment for nay period in
excess of the limit fixed under this sub-section subject to payment of overtime wages, if the

period of work, including overtime work, does not exceed ten hours in any day and in the
aggregate fifty-four hours in any week."
In substance sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Act provides for what Sections 51 and
54 of the Factories Act separately provided. With regard to the Proviso to Section 14(1), it was
urged that the limits set out by the proviso was the limit of the prescribed hours of work. This
submission does not appear to be correct, because sub-section (1) sets down the statutory ceiling
for the hours of work that may be prescribed for the day or for the week, and the reference in the
proviso is not to the hours prescribed by the employer subject to the maximum provided by the
Statue, but to the statutory ceiling provided by sub-section (1) and it is in that context that the
employer's liability to pay the overtime wages would arise. The Tamil Nadu Act was also silent
with regard to the rate at which overtime wages should be paid up to the statutory limit provided
by sub-section (1) of Section 14 over and above the prescribed period of the work. The position
under the Factories Act, considered in the context of sections 51, 54 and 59, is in no way
different and it is difficult to accept the submission of Shri Thakur that the schemes of the two
Acts being materially different, the ratio of the decision in M/s. Philips India cannot be applied to
the situation obtaining in the present case.
8. Reference was made by Shri Thakur also to the observations in Indian Oxygen Limited v.
Their Workmen, 1969 I LLJ 235. But it is not necessary to refer to those observations because in
para 21 of M/s. Philips India Limited, the Supreme Court has dealt with the proposition laid
down in Indian Oxygen Limited, and neither of those observations lend any assistance to the
respondents here in the matter of the rate of wages which would be payable for the overtime
work between the prescribed period of wages and the statutory limits set down under Sections 51
and 54 of the Factories Act. The consequence which would flow from Section 59 would apply
only to the overtime wages over and above the statutory limits set down by that Section. It is
therefore, not possible to accept the view of the learned Judge of the Labour Court that for the
entire period of overtime work beyond 42 hours per week wages should be paid at the rate of
double the ordinary rate of wages.
9. With regard to the rate which is fixed by Mangalmurti Award, the contention was that, that rate
is even less than the rate in the Factories Act and what is contemplated by section 59(2) is
ordinary rate of wages, which means basic wages plus such allowances as are mentioned therein,
and since Mangalmurti Award provides only for the payment of merely the basic wages without
the allowances, that rate would be less than the rate provided by Section 59 of the Factories Act.
Now, Section 59(2) would apply only to the case which will be covered by sub-section (1) and
not to any other case such as the one we have here which is less than 48 hours per week, but in
excess of 42 hours per week, and therefore, the argument based on the meaning given to
'ordinary rate of wages' by sub-section (2) to that expression in sub-section (1) would not lend
any assistance to the respondents.
10. It was then contended that the reasonableness of the Mangalmurti Award should be
considered because it is inconsistent with the provisions of Factories Act. In the application
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act made before the Labour Court, the only
ground raised was that as per provisions of the Factories Act, the respondents were entitled to
overtime wages at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wages for the extra work of overtime
work done by them in excess of 7 hours a day, and therefore, they were entitled to be paid the

difference of their wages and/or benefits. In the written statement filed by the present petitioner,
it was specifically mentioned that overtime wages were paid on pro rata basis calculated on basic
wages for 26 hours in excess of 182 hours per month and this was in terms of Mangalmurti
Award which is still in force and binding upon the parties. It was urged that in any case, the
period referred to in the petition up to May 1973 and up to April 1974 was irrelevant for the
reasons stated. In respect of this no challenge was raised by the respondents by making proper
pleadings either with regard to the unreasonableness of the provision made by the Mangalmurti
Award or on the ground of its inconsistency with Section 59 of the Factories Act. No other
material was also placed on record to show where the inconsistency lay and though Shri Thakur
stated that arguments were advanced before the Labour Court on this aspect it is apparent that the
arguments could not have been entertained unless a foundation was laid in the pleadings. What
fell, therefore, to be considered was only the applicability of Mangalmurti Award to the overtime
wages. With regard to the period between 48 hours and 42 hours, it cannot be said that there is
any conflict between the terms of Mangalmurti Award and the statutory requirement under
Section 59(1) of the Factories Act, as the latter is entirely silent on this aspect. The respondents
cannot, therefore, succeed on the ground either of unreasonableness of Mangalmurti Award, a
point not raised in the pleading, or on the ground of inconsistency.
11. In result, the order passed by the Labour Court is modified in that the overtime wages shall
be calculated for the overtime period between 42 and 48 hours a week in terms of the entitlement
under Mangalmurti Award and in respect of the overtime period in excess of 48 hours per week
at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wages as mentioned in Section 59(1) of the Factories Act.
The Labour Court shall work out the entitlements of the respondents on these lines within three
months. Rule made absolute.