Asso.prof.(commerce & Management)
Sr Officer-hr
+1 Other

Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
In my company we have shift operators. My question is are shift operator and shift incharge same? If yes then are shift operator eligible for overtime?
From India, New Delhi
Hi Namrata,
If I understood your query correctly, a shift-in-charge (may be a supervisor or a foreman or a sr.person) also employed to oversee the persons who are allocated work in that shift which is other than normal shift but they are asked to work OT. Am I correct? My view point here is more than one, viz.,
1) A Shift-in-charge need not be working actually in that shift but he is entrusted to be in-charge of that very same shift for the purpose of reporting, ie those persons working in that shift will take instructions from the in-charge though he is not present in the work place, but only oversee in absentia.
2) On the other hand an in-charge is very much 'on duty' and is present & oversee the persons working on such a shift.
And there need not be any doubt that the shift operator who is very much on duty, an OT shift, will be entitled to OT wages subject to limitations if any.

From India, Bangalore
What does this judgement say then?
From India, New Delhi

Attached Images
File Type: jpg JUDGEMENT.jpg (1.63 MB, 32 views)

Hi Namrata,
There are several judgments passed by various courts including SC in various contexts that a 'supervisor' is not a 'workman'. This status has been time and again stressed relating to industrial disputes including OT payment. Not only in the judgment cited but also in other disputes also. Whereas the query raised is different. A shift in charge need not be a supervisor. The term 'supervisor' goes with the nature of duties he/she has been allocated. Just because he/she is made in-charge of a shift it doesn't mean he should necessarily be a supervisor unless he/she has been designated and corresponding duties & responsibilities are clearly spelt out as 'supervisory' with suitable powers. For e.g. supposing in a manufacturing activity the employer forms different groups and each group is headed by a senior who will carry out the job along with other workmen and also see others' as well and he is made in-charge of the shift. The shift-in-charge, no doubt is an 'in-charge' but the duties of him doesn't describe he as a 'supervisor'. He, in addition to his normal duties also oversee as asked by the management. Such a situation is explained in the attached judgment.
definitions from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :
"2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,--
(k) "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or nonemployment or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour, of any person;
xxx (s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, include,,% any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per menses or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
The entitlement to OT etc and a dispute thereof would be viewed in the context of JD of an employee rather than the term being used in a contentious matter>
The attached SC judgment deals the issue who is 'workman' and 'supervisor' under the ID act.

From India, Bangalore

Attached Files
File Type: pdf SC on Who is Workman & Supervisor as per ID act.PDF (219.0 KB, 23 views)

Very interesting query. Many learned person has replied to it but couldn’t reach on final answer. Waiting for to the point answer (without writing jargon of words)
From India, Jaipur
This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™