Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs Authority Appointed Under The Minimum ... on 11 October, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
CWP No. 17067 of 2011 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17067 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.10.2012
Satnam Singh ..... Petitioner
vs
Authority Appointed under the Minimum Wages Act,
and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents, despite service.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby the application filed by him for award of minimum wages was dismissed while recording finding on preliminary issue regarding maintainability and holding that an ex-employee is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of the authority under the Act for claiming minimum wages.
After notice of motion, service of the respondents was completed for 19.10.2011. On 16.1.2012, the respondents were represented. The petition was thereafter adjourned on two dates of hearing, however, none appeared for the employer. Today as well, the position remains the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the authority holding the same to be not maintainable as he was ex-employee of the respondent employer. The controversy on merits has not been gone into. In support of his arguments that even ex-employee can invoke jurisdiction CWP No. 17067 of 2011 (2) under the Act, reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in Chairman Managing Committee, Army School, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar Cantt. vs Inderjeet Singh and another 1995 (1) RSJ 220. Whereas in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pali Devi vs Chairman Managing Committee 1996 (3) SCC 296 even an ex-employee was held entitled to invoke jurisdiction under the Act and claim minimum wages. He further submitted that the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court was relied upon by this court in CWP No. 605 of 2009, Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Ladwa and another vs Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Kurukshetra Area and others decided on 22.2.2011.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pali Devi's case (supra), has specifically held, while interpreting the provisions of Sections 20 (2) and 2
(i) of the Act if read with relevant Rules and Form VI, that both past and present employees can invoke the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act. The relevant para 8 thereof is extracted below:-
"8. In Raikot's case, the Punjab High Court however preferred the earlier view of the Madras High Court in Wakefield' Estate's case opting for the literal construction. Had the existence of the Rules and Form VI been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, perhaps the interpretation would have been different. M.C. Raikot's case arose after retrenchment of an employee with effect from April 7, 1961 and on his filing an application under Section 20(2) of the Act, when the Rules and Form VI had become operative with effect from 28.10.1960. The language of the Form, covering the cases of past and existing employees, was in accord not only with the latter view of the Madras High Court and the Kerala High Court but also with the views of the Patna High Court in Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. Presiding Officer, CWP No. 17067 of 2011 (3) Labour Court and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Patna and others, [1976 ILR - Patna Series, 318] and the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in Athni Municipality vs. Shetteppa Laxman Pattan and others [1965 volume 2 LLJ 307]. Thus on account of the preponderance of Authority, Sections 20 (2) and 2 (i) had to be read alongwith the Rules and Form VI to lean in favour of the view that both past and present employees were entitled to move in the matter. Such would be a purposive approach, which would carry out the necessary intendment of the statute, for which the Rules and the Form lend a hand to carry out the objectives of the Act. The language-employed therein, even though executives voiced, is more often than not, demonstrative of the legislative purpose. So viewed, the intendment of the statute is furthered if an ex-employee too is held entitled to seek relief under Section 20(2) of the Act."
Similar view was expressed by this court in Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School's case (supra).
Considering the enunciation of law, as referred to above, the order passed by the authority, holding the application of the petitioner being ex-employee to be not maintainable, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority for fresh consideration on merits. The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority on 9.11.2012. As the respondents-employer remained unrepresented before this court, he may be summoned afresh by the authority either direct or through their counsel.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
11.10.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge