Delhi High Court Upholds Security Guards’ Double-Rate Overtime Claims; Deletes 50% Compensation as Statutorily Impermissible and Awards 7% Interest Until Realisation Instead
Security Guards Entitled to Double-Rate Overtime Under Minimum Wages Act: Delhi High Court Upholds Labour Authority’s Findings
Facts
The Delhi High Court decided a batch of six writ petitions filed by M/s G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. challenging separate awards passed by the Authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The respondents were employed by G4S as security guards, armed guards, inspectors, head guards and supervisors. Their employer-employee relationship was undisputed.
The employees had claimed that they regularly worked beyond the prescribed working hours but were paid overtime only at the ordinary rate rather than at double the ordinary rate. They therefore sought the differential overtime wages along with compensation.
The Labour Authority partly allowed their claims. Although the claims were filed beyond the six-month limitation under Section 20, the Authority condoned the delay only to a limited extent and restricted relief to approximately the preceding three years. It accepted the duty rotas and drew an adverse inference against G4S for not producing attendance registers, overtime registers, payment registers or bank statements. It awarded the differential overtime amount plus 50% compensation.
Issues
The main issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the employees had discharged the initial burden of proving that they actually worked overtime.
- Whether self-prepared monthly duty rotas could be relied upon.
- Whether the employer’s failure to produce statutory attendance and overtime records justified an adverse inference.
- Whether the claims were barred by limitation.
- Whether security guards and supervisory security personnel were covered by the Minimum Wages Act.
- Whether the Authority could award compensation equivalent to 50% of the overtime amount despite the statutory ceiling under Section 20(3)(ii).
- What relief should replace the invalid compensation component.
Petitioner/G4S Arguments
G4S argued that the employees had failed to prove that they actually worked overtime.
It emphasized that the monthly duty rotas were prepared by the employees themselves and did not bear the management’s signature or authentication. The employees had also admitted that they had no written authorization to perform overtime.
The company further contended that:
- its witnesses had specifically denied that the employees were required to work overtime;
- non-production of employer records could not cure the employees’ initial evidentiary failure;
- the Authority had wrongly treated every calendar day as a working day, including Sundays and rest days;
- the claims were filed much beyond the six-month limitation;
- the employees were not covered by the Minimum Wages Act; and
- 50% compensation was contrary to the express statutory ceiling in Section 20(3)(ii).
Employees’ Arguments
The employees argued that they regularly worked approximately four hours of overtime daily and were paid only the ordinary rate instead of the prescribed double rate.
They relied upon:
- monthly duty rotas showing daily duty and overtime hours;
- affidavits of evidence;
- representations made to the employer;
- complaints by their union; and
- communications addressed to Labour authorities.
They also highlighted what they described as inconsistent stands by G4S: in its pleadings, the company said that whatever overtime had been worked was duly paid, while its witnesses later suggested that no overtime had been worked at all.
Most importantly, they argued that G4S failed to produce statutory records under Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act despite those records being within its exclusive custody.
Analysis of the Law
1. Initial burden to prove overtime lies on the employee
The High Court accepted the general proposition that a claimant seeking overtime wages must first establish that he actually worked beyond the prescribed hours.
However, whether that burden is discharged depends on the overall evidence in each case.
The Court therefore rejected any rigid proposition that only management-authenticated documents can establish overtime.
2. Duty rotas were relevant evidence
The employees entered the witness box, filed affidavits and produced monthly duty rotas containing details such as:
- name;
- clock number;
- total hours;
- overtime hours per day; and
- salary particulars.
They also produced contemporaneous representations concerning non-payment of overtime.
Although G4S argued that the rotas were self-prepared and unsigned, the Court held that this did not render them wholly incapable of consideration. Their evidentiary weight had to be assessed along with the rest of the record.
3. Employer’s statutory records were the best evidence
This became the most important evidentiary principle in the judgment.
The High Court held that G4S was the custodian of the most direct evidence concerning actual working hours, including:
- attendance registers;
- overtime registers;
- payment records; and
- other employment records.
Yet G4S failed to produce them, saying the records were old.
Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act imposed a statutory obligation upon employers to maintain records concerning work performed and wages paid.
Accordingly, once employees produced some prima facie material and the employer failed to produce the statutory records in its custody, the Authority was entitled to consider an adverse inference.
The Court carefully clarified that the employer’s record-keeping obligation does not eliminate the employee’s initial burden. Rather, once a prima facie case is made, the employer cannot withhold the best evidence and then complain that the employee’s proof is incomplete.
Overtime Entitlement
Section 14(1) of the Minimum Wages Act provides for overtime where an employee works beyond the number of hours constituting a normal working day.
Rule 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 provides that in scheduled employment other than agriculture, overtime is payable at double the ordinary rate of wages.
The High Court therefore found no infirmity in the Authority’s determination that the employees were entitled to differential overtime wages.
Employees Covered by Minimum Wages Act
G4S argued that security guards, armed guards, head guards, inspectors and supervisors were outside the Minimum Wages Act.
The Authority had found them covered under the scheduled employment category concerning “all Shops and Establishments covered by the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 and not covered by any other Schedule.”
It also relied upon the fact that G4S was registered under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and as an establishment under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act.
The High Court found no demonstrated legal error in this conclusion and refused to interfere.
Limitation
The claims had admittedly not been filed within the normal six-month period under Section 20(2).
However, the second proviso to Section 20(2) expressly allows the Authority to entertain delayed claims where sufficient cause is shown.
The employees had relied upon repeated representations to the employer and Labour authorities. The Authority did not grant the entire historical claim but instead restricted relief to approximately three years preceding the filing of the applications.
The High Court held that while mere representations ordinarily do not extend limitation, the Authority’s decision to condone delay was an exercise of statutory discretion based on factual material.
No perversity or arbitrariness was shown warranting interference.
Computation of Working Days
G4S argued that the Authority wrongly assumed every calendar day to be a working day and thereby included Sundays, leave and weekly offs.
The High Court held that the Authority had the duty rotas before it, while G4S had failed to produce the attendance and deployment records that could have established the precise number of working days.
The mere possibility that some weekly offs or leave had been taken was insufficient to render the computation perverse.
The Court expressly declined to verify every individual rota entry because that would amount to fresh reappreciation of evidence in writ jurisdiction.
50% Compensation Held Illegal
This was the part of the awards that the High Court found unsustainable.
Section 20(3) distinguishes between:
- claims for payment below the minimum wage, where compensation may extend up to ten times the deficiency; and
- “any other case”, including overtime claims, where compensation under Section 20(3)(ii) was capped at ₹10 under the then-applicable statute.
The claims here concerned overtime wages under Section 14, not underpayment below the notified minimum wage.
Accordingly, they squarely fell under Section 20(3)(ii).
The Authority therefore had no statutory power to award compensation equal to 50% of overtime dues.
The High Court held that an adjudicating authority created by statute cannot travel beyond the statutory ceiling merely because the prescribed amount appears economically outdated.
Distinction From Delhi Shops and Establishments Act Case
The Labour Authority had relied upon an earlier Delhi High Court order under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act where a 50% compensation award had been permitted despite an outdated statutory cap.
The High Court held that this reliance was misplaced because:
- that case arose under a different statute;
- it concerned ordinary due wages, not overtime wages;
- it did not arise under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act; and
- the Authority’s statutory powers could not be enlarged through analogy.
Code on Wages, 2019
The Court also noted that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had since been repealed by the Code on Wages, 2019, effective from 21 November 2025.
However, the claims and awards arose before the repeal.
Section 69 of the Code and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved earlier proceedings and orders. The writ petitions therefore had to be adjudicated according to the statutory framework existing when the claims were instituted and decided.
Precedent Analysis
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union
Applied for the limited scope of writ review over fact-finding authorities.
The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where findings are based on no evidence or irrelevant material.
D. Krishnan v. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill
Relied upon by G4S for the proposition that the burden to prove overtime lies on the claimant.
The High Court accepted that as a general principle but found that the employees had discharged the burden on the facts through affidavits, duty rotas and contemporaneous representations.
Sarpanch Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi
Relied upon in the context of condonation of delay and the Authority’s discretion to assess sufficient cause.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court divided the controversy into two parts.
On the substantive overtime entitlement, the employees succeeded.
The Court found that:
- they gave oral evidence;
- produced duty rotas and contemporaneous complaints;
- the employer possessed but failed to produce the best statutory evidence;
- the Authority’s adverse inference was permissible;
- the employees were covered under the Minimum Wages Act; and
- double-rate overtime was statutorily payable.
Accordingly, the overtime component of the awards survived.
On compensation, however, G4S succeeded.
The Authority had exceeded the express statutory limit by awarding 50% compensation. Since it was a creature of statute, it could not enlarge its own remedial powers on equitable or inflationary grounds.
Interest Substituted for Invalid Compensation
Rather than leaving the employees with only the principal overtime amount after removing the compensation, the High Court considered the long period for which they had been deprived of their wages.
It therefore deleted the compensation component and directed interest at 7% per annum from the date the claim accrued until realization.
G4S was directed to comply with the modified awards, after adjusting any sums already deposited or paid, within eight weeks.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court partly allowed G4S’s challenge.
It upheld the substantive finding that the employees were entitled to overtime wages at the prescribed double rate and found no reason to interfere with the Authority’s factual assessment, limitation condonation or application of the Minimum Wages Act.
However, the Court held that the 50% compensation component was ultra vires Section 20(3)(ii) because overtime claims fell within the category where the statute prescribed a specific compensation ceiling.
Accordingly:
- overtime wages remained payable;
- the 50% compensation was deleted;
- 7% interest per annum from accrual until realization was substituted;
- amounts already paid or deposited were to be adjusted; and
- compliance was directed within eight weeks.
Case Details
Case: M/s G4S Secure Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Suraj Kumar Saw & Connected Matters
Court: Delhi High Court
Lead Case: W.P.(C) 4492/2017
Connected Cases: W.P.(C) 4745/2017, 4885/2017, 4898/2017, 5115/2017 and 5142/2017
Judge: Justice Amit Mahajan
Reserved On: 20 July 2026
Pronounced On: 8 September 2026
Statute: Sections 14, 18 and 20, Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Rule 25, Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950
Result: Overtime awards upheld; 50% compensation deleted as beyond the statutory ceiling; 7% interest substituted from accrual till realization; modified awards to be complied with within eight weeks
