Chattisgarh High Court
A Societ Under Societies Reg. Act vs K.L. Tiwari And Others 70 Wpc/8/2018 ... on 5 January, 2018
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4967 OF 2008
A Society under Societies Registration Act, through Dean Pt. J.L.N.
Medical College Hospital, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1. Geetalal Sahu, S/o Shri Bhuvan Ram Sahu
2. Premlal Sahu, S/o Shri Banavram Sahu
3. Slim Ahmed, S/o Shri Abdul Azim
4. Nemichand Patel, S/o Shri Itwari Patel
5. Nakul Ram Dhimer, S/o Shri Faghuvaram Dhimer
6. Suresh Rawat, S/o Shri Basavuram Rawat
7. Manoj Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Kamhan Lal Sahu
8. Om Prakash Tiwari, S/o Shri H.N. Tiwari
9. Manoj Nirmalkar, S/o Late Udal Singh
10. Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Subeylal Sahu
11. Smt. Omkarini Sahu, W/o Shri Devanand Sahu
12. Smt. Pushapa Bai Sahu, W/o Shri Ravikumar Sahu
13. Umender Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Subeylal Sahu
14. Suresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Alinarayan Sahu
15. Smt. Poonam Gajbiya, W/o Narendra Gajibiya
16. Dushyant Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Eswari Prasad Verma
17. Khomanlal Patel, S/o Late Shyam Lal
18. Yugal Kishore Sahu, S/o Shri Lodgaram Sahu
19. Bhimaram Sinha, S/o Shri Dayaluram Sinha
20. Mukesh Nirmalakar, S/o Shri Udalu Singh Nirmalkar
21. Ramlal Yadav B. S/o Late Bookuram Yadav
22. Seshnarayan Sen, S/o Shri Bishai Sen
23. Kusehwarnath Sahu, S/o Shri Dukhuram Sahu
24. Mastaram Bariha, S/o Shri Bholteram
25. Nandkumar Thakur, S/o Shri Mansingh Thakur
26. Rajkumar Sahu, S/o Shri Deenaram Sahu
27. Smt. Lata Goswami, W/o Shri Suresh Goswami
28. Narhari Hota, S/o Shri Dukhiram
29. Sanjay Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Tukaram Verma
30. Bhupendra Sen, S/o Shri Kaliram Sen
31. Arvind Sahu, S/o Shri Lekha Ram Sahu
32. Domersingh Bhagel, S/o Shri Lochan Baghel
33. Chitrakumar Sahu, S/o Shri Munnuram Sahu
34. Moolchand Sahu, S/o Shri Chovaram Sahu
35. Chitrakumar Sahu, S/o Shri Munnaram Sahu
36. Moolchand Sahu, S/o Shri Chowaram Sahu
37. Poonachandra Sena, S/o Shri Dhansingh Sena
38. Bhupender Manikpuri, S/o Shri Madhusudhan Manikpuri
39. Laxmi Nirmalkar, S/o Shri Baliram Nirmalkar
40. Smt. Laxmi Yadav, S/o Shri Baliram Nirmalkar
41. Smt. Bhanumati Sahu, W/o Shri Tilak Ram Sahu
42. Smt. Munni Bai, S/o Shri Ramnarayan
43. Govind Prasad Sidhar, S/o Shri Samaruram Sidhar
44. Raju Soni, S/o Shri Anil Kumar Soni
45. Ramlal Yadav A. S/o Shri Jagatram Yadav
46. Mahesh Yadav, S/o Shri Basant Yadav
-2-
47. Manharanlal Sahu, S/o Shri Tulasram
48. Daulatram Sahu, S/o Shri Tulasram
49. Dhanshyam Banjare, S/o Shri Nodguram
All C/o Shri Brij Bhusan Diwedi, R/o Medical College Colony, Raipur
(C.G.)
... Respondents
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4977 OF 2008 A Society under Societies Registration Act, through Dean Pt. J.L.N. Medical College Hospital, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus
1. K.L. Tiwari, S/o Shri M.D. Tiwari
2. Seshnath Tiwari, S/o Shri D.R. Sahu
3. Smt. Kewada Bai, W/o Shri Johat Ram
4. Smt. Santi Bai Yadav, W/o Shri Bhushanlal
5. Smt. Mangali Verma, W/o Shri Sampath Verma
6. Smt. Jayalakshmi, W/o Shri Annarao
7. Smt. Vimala Goud, W/o Shri Ramshravan Gound
8. Rajibo Bancharey, S/o Shri Jagatram Bancharey
9. Smt. Tulasibai Jangel, W/o Shri Mannu Jangel
10. Ajay Soni, S/o Shri Anil Jangel,
11. Smt. Kumar Bai Jangel, W/o Shri Narsingh Jangel
12. Ashok Jangel, Shri Chamaru Jangel
13. Smt. Rajkumari Sindhar, W/o Shri Subash Sindhar
14. Smt. Asha Yadav, W/o Shri Om Prakash
15. Smt. Renu Berman, W/o Shri Paritosh Berman
16. Smt. Ujala Nayak, W/o Shri Mahender Nayak
17. Smt. Julekha Ba, W/o Shri Hameed Sheikh
18. Smt. Rajani Jangel, W/o Shri Ashok Jangel
19. Santaram Sahu, S/o Shri Mansaram
20. Smt. Asha Bi, W/o Shri Arjun
21. Smt. Sunita Ghotfodey, W/o Shri Mukesh Ghotfodey
22. Smt. Usha Bai Jangel, W/o Shri Nakulram
23. Smt. Laxmi Manikpuri, W/o Shri Laxman Ram
24. Smt. Bhagyasree, W/o Shri Chamaru Jangel
25. Smt. Meena, W/o Shri Vishal Jangel
26. Smt. Parvati Bai, W/o Shri Santaram
27. Smt. Lakmikumar, W/o Shri Nandkumar
28. Smt. Malati Verma, W/o Shri Baburao
29. Smt. Anita Sandil, W/o Shri K. Sandil
30. Smt. Bhanumati D. W/o Shri Appa Rao
31. Smt. Nirmala Dhruv, W/o Shri Kartik Ram
32. Smt. Rambati Ratre, W/o Shri Kishan Rani
33. Smt. Pushpa Verma, W/o Shri H. Verma
34. Smt. L. Laxmi, W/o J. Narayan
35. Smt. Kesari Yadav, W/o Shri Kishanlal
36. Smt. Dulhari Netam, W/o Shri Im Prakash
37. Smt. Nirmala Goswami, W/o Shri Jaimohan
38. Smt. Maya Tandil, W/o Shri M. Tandil
39. Smt. Asha Malik, W/o Shri Tarkeshwar
40. Ku. Purnima, D/o Shri N. Nayak
41. Smt. Tulasabai, W/o Shri Bashutandil
42. Smt. Sanju Soni, W/o Shri Michael Soni
43. Smt. Ghasinin Bai, W/o Shri Bahal Ram -3-
44. Smt. Savitri Jangel, W/o Shri B. Jangel
45. Smt. Kamala Durga, W/o Shri Hari Durga
46. Smt. Usha Sahu A. W/o Shri Sivaram
47. Shri Hari Durga, S/o Shri Keertan Durga
48. Smt. Gori Bharati, W/o Shri Bhupendra Saverey
49. Smt. Manju Saha, W/o Shri Vishnu Saha
50. Smt. Geeta Sarma, W/o Shri Rajeev Ram
51. Smt. Hamin Bai, W/o Shri Amarsingh Jangel
52. Smt. Geeta Netam, W/o Shri Chandrika Netam
53. Smt. Chameli Bai, W/o Shri Palandas
54. Smt. Savitri Sahu, W/o Shri Mehetar Ram
55. Smt. Laxmi Nishad, W/o Shri Ramulu Nishad
56. Smt. Mehender Soni, W/o Shri Dhanseen Sena
57. Smt. Gayatri Sinha, W/o Shri Samaru Sinha
58. Smt. Banumati B. W/o Shri Apaneswar
59. Smt. Gomati Bai, W/o Shri Shravan Kumar
60. Smt. Rashibai, W/o Shri Geeta
61. Smt. Subho Manikpuri, W/o Shri Parasdas
62. Smt. Senbai, W/o Shri Purtiram
63. Moti Ram, W/o Shri Tilakram
64. Smt. Maya Bai B., W/o Shri Shyamlal
65. Smt. Tejavati, W/o Shri Laxaman Sahu
66. Smt. Rampyari, W/o Shri Pardeshiram
67. Smt. Bayabai, W/o Shri Rajesh Nathani
68. Smt. Lalita Das, W/o Shri Sunderdas
69. Nandakumar, S/o Late Sakharam
70. Ulekh Kumar, S/o Jumuklal
71. Usha Satnami, S/o Late Dukalu Ram
72. Smt. Luchana Behara, W/o Dilip Behara
73. Smt. Sulochana Manikpuri, W/o Shri Mehender Manikpuri
74. Smt. Sukhamati Pradhan, W/o Shri Rikhiram Pradhan
75. Smt. Nirmala Satnami, W/o Shri Agnur Satnami All C/o Shri Brij Bhushan Diwedi, R/o Medical College Colony, Raipur.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. A.G.
For Respondents : None appears.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
05/01/2018
1. Challenge in the present two writ petitions is to the order dated 26.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur.
2. Vide the impugned order, the Authority has passed an order holding that the workers involved in the instant case are entitled for difference of -4- minimum wages which is fixed by the State Government and the wages which is being paid by the petitioner-department, with 3 times penalty to each of the workers.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset is that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the Authority could not have adjudicated upon the claim of the workers under Section 20 for the reason that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is only to decide as to what would be the minimum wages which would be payable to a particular category of employees within the statute and that in case there is a dispute pertaining to payment of less wages to the workers, the remedy available to the workers would be by either approaching the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act but definitely not under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.
4. None appears for the respondent-workers.
5. A similar issue came up before this Court in W.P.(L). No. 5940 of 2008, decided on 2.1.2018, wherein this Court has following the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and Others, AIR 1969 SC 1335, and Manganese Ore (India) Ltd v. Chandi Lal Saha and Others, 1991 LAB I.C. 524, and the subsequent decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sri Binod Kumar Agrawal v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Another, 1992 LAB I.C. 1303, had taken a stand that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act does not have the power to determine the difference of wages which the claimants would be entitled for, except for fixing the minimum wages that is payable to the particular category of employees.
-5-6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council, Athani (supra), has made the following observations:
"6. ...We have mentioned these provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, because the language used at all stages in that Act leads to the clear inference that Act is primarily concerned with fixing of rates - rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment for work on a day of rest - and is not really intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment of wages for which provision is made in other laws, such as the Payment of Wages Act, No. 4 of 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947. In Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act also, provision is made far seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub- section (1) of Section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under Section 14. This language used in Section 20(1) shows that the Authority appointed under that provision of law is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relate to rates of wages, rates for payment of work done on days of rest and overtime rates. If there be no disputes as to rates between the employer and the employees, Section 20(1) would not be attracted. The purpose of Section 20(1) seems to be to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are complied with by the employer in making payment and, if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates, the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under Section 20(1). In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages, and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages overtime or work on off days is due to a workman or not, the appropriate remedy is provided in Payment of Wages Act. If the payment is withheld beyond the time permitted by the Payment of Wages Act even on the ground that the amount claimed by the workman is not due, or if the amount claimed by the workman is not paid on the ground that deductions are to be made by the employer, the employee can seek his remedy by an application under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. In cases where Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act may not provide adequate remedy, the remedy can be sought either under Section 33-C of the Act or by raising an industrial dispute under the Act and having decided under the various provisions of the Act.... It is true that, under Section 20(3) power is given to the Authority dealing with an application under Section 20(1) to direct payment of the actual amount found due; but this, it appears to us, is only an incidental power granted to that Authority, so that the directions made by the Authority under Section 20(1) may be effectively carried out and there may not be unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The power to make orders for payment of actual amount due to an employee under Section 20(3) cannot, therefore, be interpreted as indicating that the jurisdiction to the Authority under Section 20(1) has been given for the purpose of enforcement of payment of amounts and not for the purpose of -6- ensuring compliance by the employer with the various rates fixed under that Act. This interpretation, in our opinion, also harmonises the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act which was already in existence when the Minimum Wages Act was passed. In the present appeals therefore, we have to see whether the claims which were made by the workmen in the various applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Act were of such a nature that they could have been brought before the Authority under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act inasmuch as they raised dispute relating to the rates for payment of overtime and for work done on weekly off days."
7. Relying upon the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Lal Saha (supra), in paragraph 17, has held as under:
"17. In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workmen demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances the remedy under Section 20 of the Act was not available to the workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
8. Subsequently, relying upon both the aforesaid judgments, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sri Binod Kumar Agrawal (supra), has taken a similar stand wherein it has been held that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act under Section 20 is not empowered to decide the entitlement of each of the workers except for deciding the minimum wage which could be payable to a worker under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. That for all other claims of a worker the appropriate remedy has been decided to be either under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
9. In the instant case also, the fact is that all the disputing workers in the instant case were working as skilled labourers at the Medical Collage Hospital run at Raipur and that in case the claimants are not paid the minimum wages or the wages which have been agreed upon, hence the -7- proper remedy or recourse which was open to them was to avail other remedies available to them either under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or, for that matter, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or any other forums which would be open to them.
10. Following the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council, Athani (supra), this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant case also.
11. The view of this Court stands further fortified from a recent decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of M/s Danteshwari Agencies v. Regional Lab Commissioner (Central) & Another, decided on 16.11.2017 in W.P.(L) No. 3954 of 2007.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) in both the writ petitions stand quashed and the two writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(L) No. 4967/2008 and W.P.(L) No. 4977/2008, both stand allowed, leaving open the liberty to the contesting respondent-workers to avail their remedy before any other appropriate forum.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/ Judge