Patna High Court
Binod Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2000(87)FLR400], (2000)IILLJ692PAT
JUDGMENT S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) an Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Dhanbad, dated February 1, 1988, by reason of which he has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 17094/- towards claim of less payment and also awarded compensation to twenty one employees. The order dated December 8, 1988 has also been impugned by which the said Authority has refused to review his order.
2. The point, which is to be decided in this case is as to whether the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for less payment of wages under Section 20(1) of Minimum Wages Act.
3. Respondent No, 2, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Gaya, exercising his power under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act complained to the Authority against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has paid less than the minimum wages fixed for their categories of employment under the Act by Rs. 3.85, Rs. 5.85 per day and Rs. 4.85 per day, for the period from February 3, 1986 to March 8, 1986 as per statement enclosed with the complaint petition. The respondent No. 2 applicant estimated the value of relief sought for the workers to the tune of Rs. 5698/-.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to well settled principles of law decided by the Apex Court in the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 520 (1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-1537), contends that once the complaint as made for less payment of the wages, the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is ousted and for the said relief claim can be entertained under the Payment of Wages Act or under the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the Central Government very fairly does not dispute this position in law.
6. In the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. (supra) their Lordships relied on the decision reported in AIR 1969 SC 1335 and in paragraph 16 have quoted the observation made by their Lordships in that decision which are as follows:
"The Minimum Wages Act is concerned with the fixing of rates - rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment of work on a day of rest and is not intended for enforcement of payment of wages. Under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, in which provision is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than minimum rates or in respect of remuneration for days of rest, or for work on such days, or of wages at the overtime rates, the Authority is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relates to the rates of wages, rates for payment for work done on days of rest and overtime rates. The power under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act given to the Authority dealing with an application under Section 20( 1) to direct payment of the actual amount found due is only an incidental power for working out effectively the directions under Section 20(1) fixing various rates under the Act. That is, if there is no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employee and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate is due or not, then Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attracted at all, and the appropriate remedy would only be either under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act."
7. In the instant case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages because complaint petition itself indicates that minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government under the Act. It appears that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned order dated February 1, 1988 as contained in Annexure 5. Respondent No. 1, also noticed the gist of the complaint that about 21 workers were paid less than minimum wages and to this effect respondent No. 2 has recorded the statement of the workers. This, in my view, cannot be jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to pass the impugned order exercising his power under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. If there would have been any dispute regarding the rate of wages, the Authority could have considered the matter but in the present case that is not the allegation.
8. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand.
9. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated February 1, 1988 is quashed. As inspite of valid service of notice private respondents have not appeared, there is no order as to costs.