Patna High Court
Mr. Hassan Jan vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 April, 1980
Equivalent citations: (1980)IILLJ358PAT
JUDGMENT Ali Ahamad, J.
1. The prayer in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash Annexure "6" an order dated 29-8-1977 passed by respondent No. 1 by which he directed the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs. 535.50 P. to respondent No. 3 under different counts.
2. Shortly stated, facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before respondent No. 1 saying inter alia, that he was an agricultural labour of the petitioner and worked as such for four years beginning from June, 1972 to September, 1976. Further according to him, he was paid rupees two per day as against the prescribed wages of Rs. 4.50 per day and Re. 1 for meal everyday. He also claimed that he was entitled to bonus at the rate of 1 quintal of paddy per year. The petitioner appeared and contested the claim made by respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner respondent No. 3 never worked as his labour and as such there was no question of making payment less than the prescribed wages. The fact that an agricultural labour was entitled to get bonus under the Act was also challenged.
3. Respondent No. 3, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, held that respondent No. 3 did work as an agricultural labour under the petitioner for four years. It also held that respondent No. 3 was paid only Rs. 2 per day as against Rs. 4,50, Further according to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3 was not given meal or Re. 1 per day in lieu of meal. It, therefore, allowed the claim of respondent No. 3 to the extent of Rs. 256.60 P. towards arrears of wages for 103 days. It also allowed Rs. 103 in lieu of one meal per day at the rate of Re. I per meal. Respondent No. 1 was of the opinion that an agriculture labour was entitled to bonus also, but the quantum of which was 1 1/2 quintals of paddy every year. It, therefore, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 150 as bonus for the year 1975-76 to respondent No. 3. It also allowed Rs. 25 as compensation to respondent No. 3 on account of delayed payment of prescribed wages. The petitioner in these circumstances has come to this Court challenging the order as contained in Annexure "6".
4. Mr. J. Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner first urged that the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 3 was an agricultural labour of the petitioner is erroneous and as such the direction to pay Rs. 535.50 P. to respondent No. 3 was bad. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 1 on a consideration of the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that respondent No. 3 was the agricultural labour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel could not point any illegality in that finding. It, is therefore, not possible for me to agree with Mr. Krishna that the finding on this point recorded by respondent No. 1 is erroneous and should be set aside. Respondent No. 1 has also on a consideration of evidence held that the petitioner used to pay only Rs. 2 to respondent No. 1 has also, on a consideration of evidence held that the petitioner used to pay only Rs. 2 to respondent No. 3. There is no illegality in this finding The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that respondent No. 3 is entitled to Rs. 2.50 per day towards arrears of wages and Re. 1 per day as costs of one meal. The direction, therefore, is that respondent No. 3 is entitled to Rs. 2.50 per day towards arrears of wages and Re. 1 per day as costs of one meal. The direction, therefore, to pay Rs. 257.50 as arrears of wages and Rs. 103 as the costs of meal for meal for 103 days is quite correct and justified.
5. Mr. Krishna, next contended that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to direct payment of Rs. 150 towards bonus for the agriculture years 1976-75. It appeals that respondent No. 1 granted bonus on the basis of notification dated 10th February, 1975 issued by the State Government. This notification, inter alia provides that an attached worker shall get 1 1/2 quintals of paddy in a year in addition to the minimum rates of wages specified above. Mr. Krishna urged that on the basis of this notification the additional wage (which has been loosely termed as bonus) cannot be given, as the wage period is one year. Learned Counsel in that connection drew my attention to Section 3(3)(b) of the Act which reads as thus:
3(3)(b) Minimum rates of wages may be fixed by any one or more of the following wage-periods, namely:
(i) by the hour
(ii) by the day
(iii) by the month, or
(iv) by such other larger wage period as may be prescribed;
and where such rates are fixed by the day or by the month, the manner of calculating wages for a month or for a day, as the case may be, may be indicated.
Provided that where any wage-periods have been fixed under Section 4 of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936, minimum wages shall be fixed in accordance therewith.
Learned Counsel also drew my attention to Rule 21 framed under the Act. This provides that the wages period with respect to any scheduled employment for which wage has been fixed shall not exceed one month. On the basis of this rule, learned Counsel contended that no wage in the form of additional wage can be directed to be paid for the wage period of more than a month and the notification in absence of any rule to that effect is without jurisdiction. Mr. Government Pleader No. 5 appearing for the State on the other hand contended that Clause (b) (i) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act provides for a wage period of more than one month. According to him by the notification dated 10th February, 1975 issued by the State Government the wage period of one year has been prescribed for the purpose of payment of additional wages. It is difficult to accept the contention of Government Pleader No. 5. Prescribed has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Act. According to this, definition "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Section 30 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules and to make rules and to publish the same in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of this Act. It is manifest, therefore, that a wage period of more than one month may be enforced only after rules to that effect are made and published in the Official Gazette. The notification dated 10th February, 1975 undisputedly is not a rule under Section 30 nor it is said to have been published in the Official Gazette The result, therefore, is that on the basis of this notification it cannot be said that a wage period of one year has been prescribed under Sub-clause (b)(iv) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the provision for payment of addition wages in the notification is bad and does not entitle an agricultural labour to claim that. The respondent No. 1, therefore, in my view, was in error in awarding bonus for the year 1975-76. His direction; therefore, to pay Rs. 150 on that account is bad, that portion of the order, therefore, is quashed. The petitioner will now pay only Rs. 384.80 P. to respondent No. 3.
6. In the results the application is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.