Railway Gatemen are entitled to overtime allowance for work exceeding eight hours daily.

The applicants were employed as Gatemen at roadside level crossings under the Northern Railway, Ambala Division.

They claimed that they were required to perform 12-hour duties, although their employment was not “Essentially Intermittent” under the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 (“2005 Rules”), and that they were therefore entitled to Over Time Allowance (OTA) for work beyond eight hours per day.

The applicants had earlier submitted a representation and legal notice seeking OTA. Pursuant to an order of the Tribunal dated 05.03.2021 directing consideration of their representation, the respondents passed an order dated 04.08.2021 rejecting the claim.

The respondents relied on the applicants’ classification as “Essentially Intermittent” Gatemen, the 12-hour roster, the Railway Board decision dated 28.06.2012, and the alleged availability of nearby accommodation.

Whether Gatemen classified as “Essentially Intermittent” and placed on a 12-hour roster are entitled to OTA for the hours worked beyond eight hours per day.

Whether the respondents could deny OTA by relying on the classification of the applicants’ posts as “Essentially Intermittent” and the relevant level crossings as “C” Class.

Whether the applicants’ claim was barred by the alleged earlier proceedings, limitation, or the alternative appellate remedy under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2005 Rules.

Whether the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 rejecting the applicants’ claim for OTA was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal applied the Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, particularly the provisions governing classification of employment, hours of work, period of rest, and OTA.

It relied on the judicial principles laid down in Om Prakash & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., Rohtas & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., and Prem Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., under which Gatemen do not fall within “Essentially Intermittent” employment and are required to work eight hours per day, with OTA payable for work beyond that period.

The Tribunal also relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in W.P.(C) No. 8088/2016, which upheld directions for payment of OTA to Gatemen for work beyond eight hours.

The Tribunal distinguished Vijay Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., O.A. No. 2370/2013, because that case concerned reclassification of a railway station rather than entitlement to OTA.

The Tribunal held that the governing issue was the applicants’ entitlement to OTA for the actual requirement that they work beyond eight hours, rather than a fresh adjudication of the classification of the level crossings.

Applying the consistent decisions concerning Gatemen, it found that their duties did not become “Essentially Intermittent” merely because they were assigned to level crossings or placed on a 12-hour roster.

The respondents’ reliance on the Railway Board decision dated 28.06.2012, the “C” Class designation, and the alleged availability of residential accommodation could not defeat the judicially recognised entitlement of Gatemen to OTA for work beyond eight hours.

The closure of Gate No. C-129 in December 2019 also did not retrospectively extinguish any OTA that accrued during the period when Applicants 2 and 3 actually performed duty there.

Since the respondents produced no subsequent decision overturning or unsettling the established legal position, the rejection of the applicants’ claim was unsustainable.

The respondents were directed to verify the relevant service and roster records and pay OTA for the period during which the applicants were required to work beyond eight hours per day, in accordance with the applicable rules and governing judicial decisions.

The consequential arrears were directed to be released within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The claim for interest at 12% per annum was declined, and the Original Application was disposed of with no order as to costs.