Patna High Court
G.S. Dugal & Co. (Private) Ltd. vs Labour Inspector (Central) on 21 September, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR1968PAT90, AIR 1968 PATNA 90, 1968 LAB. I. C. 338
Author: N.L. Untwalia
Bench: N.L. Untwalia
JUDGMENT Untwalia, J.
1. These four civil revision applications have been filed by the employer against the order of the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of me Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948), hereinafter called the Act, made in four cases filed by the Labour Inspector (Central), Ranchi, under Sub-section (2) of Section 20. The applications were filed on or about the 2nd of July, 1962 for a direction to the employer to pay the deficit amount which it was liable to pay under the notification issued under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. The four cases related to different labourers in respect of the wages paid to them in a part of the period in the month of February, 1962. In the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 490 of 1963, the deficit payment of wages was to the tune of Rs. 110.75. in the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 491 of 1963, the claim was Rs. 112.50, in the case out of which Civil Revision No. 492 of 1963 arises the claim for wages was Rs. 79.48 and in the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 493 of 1963 the claim was for Rs. 81.33. The total claim was Rs. 384.06. The Authority under the Act has directed, under Sub-section (3) of Section 20, the petitioner to pay the said amount of deficit wages together with ten times the amount of such deficit by way of compensation under Clause (1) of Sub-section (3). The total amount of compensation directed to be paid in all the cases is Rs. 3,840.60 The petitioner company has obtained rules from this Court against the Labour Inspector to show cause why the orders of the Authority be not set aside. Cause has been shown on behalf of the Opposite Party by Mr. K. D. Chatterjee.
2. Learned Advocate-General who argued the petitioner's case submitted 3 points in support of these applications:--
(i) That the notification which was issued fixing the minimum wages payable to the workmen concerned was too vague and ambiguous and could not lead to the conclusion that the wages paid to them were less than the minimum fixed by the notification,
(ii) That the employees concerned had made no claim or grievance that they had been paid less than the minimum wages and in absence of there bring a claim by, or on behalf of, them, the Labour Inspector had no locus standi to file an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act.
(iii) That on the facts and in the circum-stances of these cases, the Authority has not applied its mind nor has it judicially exercised its discretion in awarding the maximum of amount of compensation i.e., ten times the amount of wages said to have been paid less.
3. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the Labour Inspector submitted that none of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner is correct. But, along with that he made a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these applications on the ground that the employees concerned have not been made parties to these applications and any adverse order made by this Court against them will be in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the order will be made without giving them an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
4. During the hearing of these applications, a question also arose as to whether the Authority under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or whether the proper remedy of the employer was to move this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not think it necessary to decide this point. The applications have been directed to be placed for hearing before the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court when they came up for hearing before him. Under the Rules of this Court, such applications filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution can be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to decide this point as to whether the civil revisions are competent or whether we can exercise our power under any of the provisions of the Constitution.
5. I also think that there is no substance in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Party. The only party applicant before the Authority was the Inspector. Of course, he made the applications for the benefit of the employees concerned and the order of the Authority ultimately will be for their benefit. But if under the Statute he has been authorised to move the Authority for an order under Section 20 of the Act, he can very well represent them in the proceedings before this Court, and it is not necessary to give an opportunity individually to each and every employee concerned. Moreover, the petitioner's case is that the whereabouts of all the employees are not known.
6. In order to dispose of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to point out that under Section 3 (1) of the Act the appropriate Government shall, in the manner prescribed in the Act,--
"(a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either Part by notification under Section 27:". Sub-section (3) of Section 3 says-
" In fixing or revising minimum rates of wages under this section,--
"(a) different minimum rates of wages may be fixed for-
*****
(ii) different classes of work in the same scheduled employment;
*****
(iv) different localities:".
Section 4 provides as to on what basis the minimum rate of wages is to be fixed and Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. Item 7 of the schedule appended to the Act reads thus-
" Employment on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations."
7. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the Central Government issued Notification No. S.O. 41 dated 22nd of December 1959 (a copy of which is Annexure A to the application) fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees specified in the annexure appended to the notification. This annexure reads as follows : --
"(1) Initial wage fixation for the employees employed on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations in Collieries under the control of the National Coal Development Corporation Limited Ranchi Categories of Employees, All inclusive minimum rate of Wages per day.
In Coal mines.
Unskilled ...
...
...
Rs. 2/10/6 Semi-skilled ...
...
...
Rs. 2/14/8 Skilled ...
...
...
Rs. 3/12/-
In Development Area Unskilled ...
...
...
Rs. 1/8/-
Semi skilled ...
...
...
Rs. 2/4/-
Skilled ...
...
...
Rs. 3/-
N.B. -- It the National Coal Development Corporation Limited, engaged contractors for similar work' the abor rates will be applicable to labour engaged by contractors also."
8. The petitioners case is that it carries on business of building contractors and has been doing some construction work for the National Coal Development Corporation, in Bharkunda or Saunda Colliery area; and for the purpose of carrying out the contract work they have been employing and they are employing a number of casual workmen at different places from time to time. Its further case is that it addressed a letter dated 13-11-1981 to the Labour Welfare Officer, Government of India, Bhar-kunda-Argudda Group of State Collieries, having his head office at Argudda, district Ranchi, enquiring from him whether the rates fixed for mining areas or those fixed for the development areas were payable by the petitioner company, To this letter, the Welfare Officer sent reply on the 23rd of November, 1961; a copy of the letter is Annexure B to the application. This letter reads thus:
"I have examined the point and am directed to say that the minimum rates of wages payable to workmen (employed through the contractors) in the Coal Mining Area of N.C.D.C. ere laid down in the Minimum Wages Rules (6). The latest notification from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, lays down two sets of rates:
(1) Rates for mining area, and (2) Rates for the development area.
The jobs, construction of buildings and roads in coal mines are said to be casual works and, therefore, in my opinion, the rates of Coal Awards are not applicable to such workers.
Of the two sets of rates, as mentioned above, for labour employed on the construction of buildings, such as your works, rates as fixed for Development area are payable.
Therefore, you are requested to please ensure-
" that no labour employed by you on your works is paid less than Rs. 1.50 for unskilled workers per day. . . . "
9. The petitioner's case further is that it has been paying wages, in accordance with the aforesaid instructions received from the Welfare Officer, to the employees working during the relevant period, and at no point they laid any claim whatsoever to excess wages on the ground that they have been paid less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under the notification (Annexure A).
10. The authority, in its order, has held that the letter, a copy of which is Annexure B, was not relevant because according to the Government Notification No. S.O. 3192 dated 18-10-1962 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, published in the Gazette of India dated 20-10-1962. it has been clearly defined that a development area' is an area where coal mines are in process of development but has not started working, while it was clear from the letter of the Deputy Superintendent of Colliery, Bharkunda (N.C.D.C.), that the coal mines of Bharkunda started working as far back as 1924 and, hence, it was not a development area, and that the first part of the annexure to the notification was attracted to all the cases.
11. In my opinion, even without the aid of the notification issued on the 16th October, 1962. a certified copy of which has been shown to us, there is no difficulty in holding that the minimum wages which were fixed by the notification of the 22nd of December. 1959 were in respect of employees employed on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations in colleries and different rates were fixed for different classes of workers in the same scheduled employment and for different localities. There is no difficulty in regard to the wages fixed for different classes of worker namely, unskilled, semi-skilled or skilled. But different rates were fixed for such employees working in "coal mines" and "development area". For the latter, rates fixed were lower, The question is as to what is meant by the expression "employees employed on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations in Collieries". To my mind, the expression "in coal mines" with reference to the context does not mean inside a coal mine, as was argued on behalf of the petitioner, nor does the expression relate to employees working underground in the coal mine.
It is a matter of experience, as was conceded to on behalf of the petitioner also, that construction or maintenance of roads or building operation is not carried on inside a coal mine under the surface. They are almost invariably carried on on the surface and in the working colliery in the sense of commercial unit, as explained in the decision of a Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, in Khas Karanpura Colliery, Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Pat 305. In contrast (sic) to the working coal mine there are unworked lands including dormant or abandoned mines, the distinction of which has again been pointed out in the Patna decision just referred to. In that sense, the two expressions "in coal mines" and "in development area", it has got to be held as a matter of necessary construction, have been used in the notification dated 22nd of December, 1959. There is no ambiguity there. The expressions when understood with reference to existing facts and the acquisitions of various unworked lands or dormant coal mines for the purposes of making them over to the National Coal Development Corporation present no difficulty.
The petitioner being a contractor of the National Coal Development Corporation must have understood those expressions in the sense they have been used in the notification (Annexure A). The subsequent notification issued on the 16th of October, 1962, fixes the minimum wages for the same kind of employees in all collieries other than those under the control of the National Coal Development Corporation, because the previous notification of the 22nd December, 1959, fixed the minimum wages of the employees employed on the construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations in collieries under the control of the latter. By way of abundant precaution and to remove any doubt which might have arisen against the expression "in development area", it was further stated in this notification of the 16th of October 1962-
"i.e., areas where coal mines are in process of development but have not started working."
Even without the said clarification, to my mind, the expression "in development area" was capable of no other meaning.
12. Of course, the fact that some confusion was created by the letter of the Labour Welfare Office) a copy of which is Annexure B, cannot be lost sight of The meaning put by the said Labour Officer to the notification dated 22nd of December, 1959, was wrong. The wrong interpretation, however, gave a handle or an excuse to the petitioner to pay to its employees engaged on construction or maintenance of roads or in building operations in Bharkunda Colliery, which was a working colliery, at the rate fixed for such employees working in development area. From the point of view of awarding compensation under Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act or for the purposes of prosecution under Section 22, the confusion created by the wrong meaning put in the letter {Annexure B) may be relevant or may be taken into consideration. But the meaning aforesaid is of no avail to the petitioner to ask us to accept that wrong interpretation and to say that the wages paid by the petitioner to its employees concerned were not lower than the minimum wages fixed by the notification (Annexure A).
13. Coming to the second point urged on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not necessary that there should be a claim made--orally or in writing--by the employees concerned before the Labour Inspector in order to entitle him to file an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. Under Section 12, the employer is under an obligation to pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employment under him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by the notification for that class of employees in that employment where, in respect of any scheduled employment, a notification under Section 5 has been made. There is a public policy behind the protection given to a poor employee, and for the sake of social justice and security such a legislation has been passed.
As soon as wages less than the minimum fixed by the notification are paid, claim for the payment of the balance arises, whether it is expressly made by the employee concerned or not, and the Inspector appointed under Section 19 of the Act is well within his power to protect the interests of the employees who have been paid less wages than the minimum fixed by moving the Authority under Section 20 (2) of the Act for an order in terms of Sub-section (3). It is needless to emphasise that such an amount, as may be directed to be paid under subsection (3), when paid or realised, will be for the benefit of such employees and of no other. The procedure prescribed for realisation of such amount is given in Sub-section (5) of Section 20 and the method of deposit is provided in Section 22 of the Act. In my opinion, therefore, the employees concerned had a claim of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 20 whether they expressly made it or not, and when the Inspector was satisfied that they had such claim, he was competent to file an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 before the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1).
14. In regard to the amount of compensation, however, I feel the Authority has not exercised its power judicially and judiciously. Although no criteria are indicated in Clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act for fixing the amount of compensation which has to be directed to be paid along with the amount of the excess wages within the meaning of the said clause, i.e., the excess amount by which the minimum wages payable to the employee concerned exceeds the amount actually paid, the outer limit of the amount of compensation is ten times such excess amount. That can never mean that without any rhyme or reason and in ail cases it must be ten times the said amount. The quantum of compensation has got to be fixed with reference to the facts of each case. It can be to the maximum limit where the Authority is of the view that the employer has deliberately paid less wages than the minimum ones and has done so in spite of demands by the employees concerned or any officer, authority or body on their behalf. Here, in the instant cases, as I have indicated above, the petitioner was misled by the wrong meaning given by the Labour Welfare Officer to the notification dated 22nd of December, 1959.
At no point of time the employees concerned seem to have made any grievance nor does the Inspector who filed the application under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 seem to have pointed out to the petitioner that it was paying less wages to its employees than the ones fixed by the notification. It seems that under Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act some amount of compensation has got to be awarded. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, I think the order of the Authority directing payment of ten times the amount of the deficit wages is capricious and arbitrary. I would, therefore, reduce the said amount of compensation from ten times to the amount equal to the amounts of wages paid less to the employees concerned; that is to say, in Civil Revisions 490, 491, 492 and 493 of 1963 the amounts of compensation payable would be Rs. 110.75, Rs. 112.50, Rs. 79.48 and Rs. 81.33 respectively. Subject to this modification, the applications fail and are dismissed but, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, I would make no order as to cost.
S.N.P. Singh, J.
15. I agree.