Allahabad High Court
M/S Gurukul Kangri Pharmacy, Haridwar vs Prescribed Authority Under Min.Wages ... on 23 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved AFR Case :- WRIT- C No. - 59727 of 2017 Appellant :- M/S Gurukul Kangri Pharmacy Haridwar Respondent :- Prescribed Authority under Min. Wages Act, 1948 & Another Counsel for Appellant :-Shakti Swarup Nigam, Lakshmi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Shailesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
1. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, for the petitioner and Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, for respondent-2.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Prescribed Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, dated 31.10.2017, directing for payment of Rs. 86242/- i.e. less amount than the minimum rates of wages payable and Rs. 86242/- as compensation to Smt. Deepti Singh.
3. Smt. Deepti Singh (respondent-2) moved an application (registered as M.W.A. Case No. 1 of 2011) for payment of Rs. 1,77,254/- as the less amount than the minimum rates of wages payable to her, for her services of 77 months with the petitioner and its ten times compensation and Rs. 1000/- as costs. It has been stated by her that she was appointed as 'Computer Operator' on 19.01.2004 by the petitioner at its branch at 52, Delhi Road, Manharpur, Saharanpur and worked continuously from 19.01.2004 to 03.06.2010 on that post. She was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month although according to Government Order, minimum wage of Rs. 4802/- per month was payable. Thus she was entitled for the less amount than the minimum rates of wages payable to her for a period of 77 months, compensation and cost. This case was filed on 26.07.2010 along with delay condonation application. Delay was condoned by order dated 08.12.2010. Statement of Smt. Deepti Singh was recorded on 10.01.2011. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority by an ex parte order dated 21.01.2011 allowed the case.
4. The petitioner filed an application dated 15.02.2011, for recalling the orders dated 04.09.2010 and 21.01.2011, which was allowed on 14.07.2011. The petitioner then filed its objection in delay condonation application on 03.09.2011 and written statement on 14.08.2012 and contested the aforesaid case. The petitioner took plea that Smt. Deepti Singh was appointed as 'trainee' and was not entitled for minimum wages. Records of more than three years old have been weeded out as such it is not possible to say as to what period Smt. Deepti Singh had worked with them. She worked as 'trainee' as part time and was paid accordingly. She cannot be treated as workman.
5. Respondent-2 filed her replication on 03.10.2012. Respondent-2 filed an application dated 19.10.2012 for summoning Attendance Register for the period of 19.01.2004 to 03.06.2010, Register relating to payment of wages to the workmen and record of M.W.A. Case No. 256 of 2003, initiated on the basis of report of Sri C.L. Verma, Labour Inspector. Smt. Deepti Singh filed her Appointment Letter dated 17.01.2004, Joining Letter dated 19.01.2004, Letter dated 31.01.2004 by which she was directed to be paid Rs. 2500/- per month and letter dated 24.04.2012 showing that branch office at Saharanpur was closed. Smt. Deepti Singh again examined as witness on 20.03.2013. The petitioner examined Arun Kumar on 23.08.2016 as its witness.
6. Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 31.10.2017, held that from the evidence of Smt. Deepti Singh, it was proved that she was appointed as Trainee (Computer Operator) on 17.01.2004. She worked on that post from 19.01.2004 to 03.06.2010. She was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2500/ per month. According to the Govt. Order, minimum wages of Rs. 4802/- per month was fixed as such she was entitled for payment of Rs. 86242/- i.e. less amount than the minimum rates of wages payable to her and Rs. 86242/- as compensation. On these findings, he allowed the application of Smt. Deepti Singh and directed for payment of aforesaid amount within 30 days. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the complaint was made for less payment of wages then such relief can be obtained under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 and jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is ousted. Impugned order dated 31.10.2017 is without jurisdiction. Prescribed Authority has not assigned any reason for grant of compensation. He relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council Athani Vs. Prescribed Authority, Labour Court Huubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335, Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha, AIR 1991 SC 520 and different High Courts in Kunj Bihari Lal Vs. Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, AIR 1970 Raj. 265, Binod Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2000 (87) FLR 400 and Chacha Nehru Vidyapith Vs. Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 2001 (89) FLR 1060.
8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Relevant provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are quoted below:-
Section 12. Payment of minimum rates of wages.--(1) Where in respect of any scheduled employment a notification under Section 5 is in force, the employer shall 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 such notification for that class of employees in that employment without any deductions except as may be authorised within such time and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2)Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936).
Section 20. Claims.--(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the 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, to employees employed or paid in that area.
(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under sub-section (3):
Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable:
Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct--
(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess,
(ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees, and the Authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application.
9. Section 20 (1) provides for appointment of the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the 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, to employees employed or paid in that area. Section 20 (3) gives jurisdiction to pass an order for payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess.
10. Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335, held that under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act also, provision is made for 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 dispute 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 payments 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).
11. In Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha, AIR 1991 SC 520, the dispute was as to grain supplied at concessional rates and the amount paid as attendance bonus can be treated as minimum wages. The dispute was in respect of deduction of aforesaid amount from the wages. Supreme Court held that 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."
12. Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335, has specifically held that 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 payments 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). Contrary view taken by High Courts is not liable to be accepted. Provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not exclude the jurisdiction of the Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, exercised by him under Section 20 of the Act. There being no express provisions, exclusion of jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be inferred.
13. Findings of fact that Smt. Deepti Singh was appointed as Trainee (Computer Operator) on 17.01.2004. She worked on that post from 19.01.2004 to 03.06.2010. She was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2500/ per month. According to the Govt. Order, minimum wages was fixed Rs. 4802/- per month is based upon evidence on record and have not been challenged. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
14. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2018/mt