1. This revision has arisen out of the Judgment of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal which was against an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner herein is the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Secunderabad depot. The respondents are said to be casual drivers who were employed by the said Sorporation. The respondents have filed an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act Hyderabad claiming a sum of Rs. 398-08 np. as overtime wages payable to them for the work done on weekly days of rest. The said application was contested by the petitioner Corporation on the ground inter alia that the respondents were only casual employees during the claim period and as such they are not entitled to weekly days of rest as provided under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and therefore they are not entitled to double the wages towards overtime work done on weekly days of rest. Both the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Chief Judge City Civil Court held that even though the respondents are casual drivers they come within the definition of ‘motor transport worker’ as defined under Section 2(3)(h) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and therefore they are also entitled to weekly days of rest and if they were made to work on those days they are entitled to double the wages.
2. It is not In doubt that if the casual drivers can also be brought within the definition of ‘motor Transport Worker’ as defined under the Motor Transport Workers Act that the respondents would be entitled to double the wages as claimed by them for work done on weekly days of rest.
3. Therefore the only point that has to be considered is whether the casual drivers also would come within that definition. Under Section 2(3)(h) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, the expression ‘motor transport worker’ was defined as meaning:
“a person who is employed in a motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor, cleaner, station staff, line cheking staff, booking clerk, cash clerk, depot clerk, time-keeper, watchman or attender, but except (1) any such person who is employed in a factory as defined In the Factories Act, 1948 and (2) any such person to whom the provisions of any law for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops or commercial establishments apply.”
4. From a reading of the above definition it is clear that it did not make any distinction between a casual or temporary employee and a permanent or regular employee. From the definition It appears clear that it applies equally to all these categories. Therefore even the drivers who are merely casual or temporary employees would be entitled to weekly days of rest. If that is so, if they are made to work on weekly days of rest they are entitled to double the wages towards overtime. It also appears that the respondents though called casual workers were employed on monthly basis and not on daily basis and they are paid wages monthly and not at the end of the every day for the day's work.
5. Under these circumstances the view taken by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and which was confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court in appeal is correct. Accordingly there are no merits in Hie revision petition and It is dismissed with costs.
6. Revision dismissed.