Rejection of conflicting judicial precedents upholding restricted overtime

Judicial decisions that attempt to sustain restrictive interpretations of overtime calculations by excluding standard allowances run contrary to the correct interpretation of the statutory scheme. Specifically, prior judicial views upholding the discontinuation of overtime allowances on house rent and transport allowances fail to appreciate the true literal mandate of Section 59(2). Such erroneous rulings cannot be treated as binding law when they conflict directly with the protective intent and plain text of the Factories Act. The judiciary must correct past interpretive errors to ensure that workers across all jurisdictions receive their lawful entitlements without administrative discrimination. A thorough reading of the statute demonstrates that compensatory allowances form an integral component of the ordinary rate of wages unless specifically barred by Parliament. Overruling divergent High Court views reinforces judicial consistency and protects the rights of civilian employees in defence establishments nationwide. The correct legal position mandates that all regular allowances forming part of a worker's emoluments must be factored into overtime computations. This ensures uniformity, fairness, and strict adherence to parliamentary intent in all industrial adjudications. (Union of India & Others v. Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees' Union and Another | 2026 INSC 74)