Supreme Court of India
Mangananese Ore (India) Ltd vs Chandi Lal Saha And Ors on 1 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 520, 1990 SCR SUPL. (2) 533, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 520, 1991 LAB. I. C. 524, (1991) 1 JT 47 (SC), 1991 BRLJ 75 158, 1991 (1) JT 47, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 1, 1991 (2) SCC(SUPP) 465, (1991) 1 CURLR 357, 1992 SCC (L&S) 202, 1991 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 419, (1990) 77 FJR 420, (1991) 62 FACLR 75, (1999) 3 LABLJ 1537, (1991) 1 LAB LN 304, (1991) 1 SERVLR 625, (1991) 5 CORLA 26, (1991) 43 DLT 104
PETITIONER:
MANGANANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHANDI LAL SAHA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1990
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 520 1990 SCR Supl. (2) 533
1991 SCC Supl. (2) 465 JT 1991 (1) 47
1990 SCALE (2)902
ACT:
Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Sections 2(h), 3(1)(a),4 & 11
Manganese Mines--Workers--Minimum Wages--Monetary value
grain supplied at concessional rates anti amount paid as
attendance bonus to workers--Whether can be treated as wage
in kind deducted from the minimum wages.
`Grain concession' and `Attendance bonus'--Nature
of--Difference between Incentive bonus and Minimum wage
explained.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33C(2): Labour
Court--Jurisdiction of--Application for recovery of deficit
amount of minimum wages--Whether barred by section 20 of the
Minitaunt Wages Act, 1948.
HEADNOTE:
The Government of India by a notification issued under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixed the minimum rates of wages
payable to different categories of employees of the Manga-
nese Mines. The appellant Company was paying minimum wages
to its workers. Besides it was also paying to its employees
attendance bonus and Was supplying grain to them at conces-
sional rates. But the appellant was deducting Out of their
wages the monetary value of the grain concession and the
attendance bonus. The workers of the appellant Company
working at Nagpur (Maharashtra) and Balaghat (Madhya Pra-
desh) filed applications under section 33C(2) of the Indus-
trial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Courts at Nagpur
and at Jabalpur for recovery of the deficit. amOUnt of wages
due to them from the appellant. The appellant opposed the
applications on the ground that the minimum wage Was all
inclusive wage which included the cash value of gram conces-
sion and attendance bonus.
The Labour Court, Nagpur, allowed the applications of
the workers by holding that the monetary value of the grain
supplied `at concessional rate or the amount paid as attend-
ance bonus could not be counted towards the minimum wage.
But the Labour Court, Jabalpur partly allowed the applica-
tions of the workers and decided the issue regarding
534
the supply of concessional grain against the workmen by
holding that the appellant was entitled to add the cash
value of the grain-concessional for computing the minimum
wage. The workmen did not challenge the order of the Labour
Court, Jabalpur but the appellant challenged the orders of
both the Labour Courts by filling writ petitions in the High
Court of Bombay and Madhya Pradesh. Both the High Courts
dismissed the writ petitions.
In appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of
the appellants; (1) that the notification fixing minimum
wage being all inclusive it would include the amount of
bonus attendance and the monetary value of concessional
grain; (ii) since the grain concession and attendance bonus
were benefits which could be computed in money they were
remuneration within the definition of `wages' under section
2(h) of the Act; and (iii) in view of the provisions con-
tained in Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the
Labour Court had no jurisdiction under section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to proceed with the applica-
tions for recovery of deficit amount of minimum wages.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. Section 11(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
lays down that the minimum wages payable under the Act shall
be paid in cash. Sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 11 are
exceptions to the mandate contained in section 11(1). Sec-
tion 4(1)(iii) and section 4(2) have to be read with section
11 of the Act. Section 4(1)(iii) mentions only such "cash
value of the concession" as has been authorised "wages in
kind" under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act. There-
fore, there cannot be a wage in kind unless there is a
notification by the appropriate Government under section
11(3) of the Act. It is only the appropriate Government
which can authorise wages partly in kind. In the absence of
any notification by the appropriate Govt. for the supply of
essential commodities at concessional rates the cash value
of such concessions cannot be treated as wage in kind and
cannot be deducted from the minimum wages which have to be
paid in cash under section 11(1) of the Act. In the instant
case there being no notification by appropriate Government
under section 11(3) of the Act the appellant cannot take
advantage from para 2 of the notification or from provisions
of section 4(1)(m) of the Act.
2. The scheme of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 recognises
"wages" as defined under section 2(h) and also "wages in
kind" under section 11 of the Act. Reading both the provi-
sions together "wages in
535
kind" can only become part of the wages if the conditions
provided under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 11
of the Act are complied with. Since there was no notifica-
tion by the Central Government under section 11(3) of the
Act the supply of grain at a concessional rate cannot be
considered "wages" under section 2(h) of the Act.
2.1. The managements of public sector undertakings which
are bound by Director Principles of State Policy enshrined
under Part IV of the Constitution must endeavour to secure
for their workmen apart from "wages" other amenities also.
These amenities may be capable of being expressed in terms
of money but it is clear from the scheme of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 that these concessions do not come within
the meaning of "wages" under section 2(h) of the Act. The
supply of grain at concessional rate to the workers is in
the nature of an amenity or an additional facility/service
and cannot be included in the rates of wages prescribed by
the notification.
2.2. There is a basic difference between the incentive
bonus and the minimum wage. Every workman is entitled to
minimum wage from the very first day of his joining the
employment whereas the bonus has to be earned and it becomes
payable after the event. In the instant case the attendance
bonus was payable after regular attendance for a specified
period and remaining loyal to the management. The scheme of
payment of attendance bonus was thus an incentive to secure
regular attendance of the workmen. It was an additional
payment made to the workmen as a means of increasing produc-
tion. Therefore, the attendance bonus is in the nature of an
incentive and it cannot be treated as part of minimum wages
under the Act.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959]
S.C.R. Suppl. (2) 1012; followed.
3. The Minimum Wages Act is concerned with the fixing of
rates of minimum 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 mini-
mum rates the Authority is to exercise jurisdiction for
deciding claims which relate to rates of wages. The power
under section 20(3) of the Act given to the Authority deal-
ing with an application under section 20(1) to direct pay-
ment 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
536
the agreed rate is due or not, then s. 20(1) of the Act
would not be attracted at all, and the appropriate remedy
would only be either under s. 15(1) of the payment of Wages
Act or under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3.1. In the instant case there was no dispute regarding
the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that
the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of
India under the Act. The workmen demanded the minimum wages
so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workmen on
extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances the
remedy under section 20 of the Act was not available to the
workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdic-
tion under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, HubIi & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 51; followed.
[Notwithstanding the fact that the order of the Labour
Court Jabalpur became final, the Supreme Court invoked its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and
directed that the benefit of this judgment he extended to
the workmen of the appellant in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
]
JUDGMENT:
