Delhi High Court - Orders
Cpwd Mazdoor Union vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 August, 2021
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~6 (1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 212/2020
CPWD MAZDOOR UNION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Prasad, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.
Dhruv Pande, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 09.08.2021 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. In terms of the order dated 19.10.2015 issued by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA. Nos.435 & 439/2015, the respondents were to pay wages to the workmen in terms of the agreement between the parties notified on 05.09.1986. The issue was -- for overtime, minimum wages would not be payable i.e. provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was not applicable to the workmen. Reference was made to the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. The rationale was discussed as under:
"....Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.08.2021 13:39:47
8. It is apparent that the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the Minimum Wages Act 1948 was intended to fix minimum wages for different categories of workmen but held that in harmony with the general scheme of industrial legislation in India it could not be said that the expression „at double the ordinary rate of wages‟ in Rule 25 of the M.P. Minimum Wages Rules 1951 would mean at double the minimum wages. Thus, the claim of the workmen that for extra work they should be paid double wages with reference to the wages received by them, notwithstanding the same being more than the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act was upheld.
9. In Municipal Council Hatta's case (supra) noting that wages received by the workmen were as per a scale of pay notified under M.P.Municipal Services (Scale of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1967 and not under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 the Supreme Court held that the workmen could not claim benefit under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 for overtime work.
10. In Municipal Council Hatta's case authored by a two Judge bench, the three Judge bench decision in Y.A.Mamarde's case was not noted.
11. The learned Single Judge has held that the law declared in Y.A.Mamarde's case would bring out that the law declared by the Supreme Court was that because of Rule 25 of M.P.Minimum Wage Rules 1951 the employees of the municipality would be entitled to overtime wages at double the rate of the existing wages and thus it was fallacious to argue that the Supreme Court in said decision was not concerned with the linkage of overtime wages to the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act. The learned Single Judge has held that the decision would show that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.08.2021 13:39:47 even if wages higher than the minimum wages were being paid to the employees in a scheduled employment, the employees would be entitled to overtime as per Rule 25 of the 1951 Rules and further the doubling of the rate had to be with reference to the wages received. In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge had held that he would be bound by the law declared by the three Judge bench in YA.Mamarde's case.
12. The facts noted by us would evince that the Director General, CPWD and the employees of the Union had entered into an agreement which was notified on September 05, 1986 that for overtime work the employees would be paid double wages with reference to wages received for normal work. Though the entitlement of the workmen of CPWD may not be under any statutory rules framed under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, but would be certainly flowing out of the agreement. The reason to resile from the agreement given by the Director General, CPWD is the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council Hatta's case, which to our mind, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, would not be the precedent to be followed because it has been rendered ignoring the three Judge bench decision in Y.A.Mamarde's case and we find that the ratio is in direct conflict with that in Mamarde's case because in Mamarde's case it has been categorically held by the Supreme Court that entitlement to overtime wages cannot be linked to the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act 1948. Thus and it hardly matters whether the wages, more than the minimum wages, are paid under any standing orders issued pursuant to a settlement or as per a scale of pay notified by Pay Rules.
13. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
...."Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.08.2021 13:39:47
2. The workmen are aggrieved by the non-payment of their just dues in terms of the settlement agreement.
3. Due to low bandwith/poor internet connectivity, the learned counsel for the petitioner is inaudible.
4. Renotify on 01.09.2021.
5. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J AUGUST 9, 2021 AB Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:11.08.2021 13:39:47