Arati Jaiswal vs State Of Jharkhand & Other on 31 July, 2012

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Arati Jaiswal vs State Of Jharkhand & Other on 31 July, 2012

The issue raised in the present writ application is whether the proceeding initiated under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act in M.W. Case No. 17/02 on the basis of the complaint of the Labour Inspector, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, with allegation of less payment of the wages than the Minimum Wages fixed by the State Government against the petitioner is maintainable under the provision of the Minimum Wages Act or the remedy if at all available to the aggrieved party is under the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948 .

From the contents of the writ application and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that the petitioner had engaged local labourers for the work of digging pond under Kapat Yogna in the Village Viskham of Block Chandankiyari as per the State Government Notification and Guidelines and the Minimum Wages fixed was Rs. 64.61 per day at the relevant point of time, but during inspection by the Labour Inspector, it was found that the labourers were paid less payment than the minimum wages fixed as per the Minimum Wages Act.

In view of the report enclosed as Annexure3, which relates to institution of the complaint before the Sub Divisional Officercum Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the M. W. Case No. 17/02 was filed under Section 20(1) of the said Act. Without going into the merits of the controversy the question raised in the writ petition can be answered as it is no longer res integeria being covered by a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 421/03 dated 20th May, 2004 reported in 2004(3) JLJR 231, wherein it has been held that the authority empowered under Section 20(1) is competent to hear and decide any claim arising out of payment of less than minimum wage by an employer to his employee within the area of operation of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:

2 "Para18. In the light of the proposition thus enunciated by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the claim that minimum wages, though fixed, had not been paid, with a prayer for direction to the employer to pay the difference would not come within the purview of the authority under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Of course, the above decision of the Supreme Court is also an authority for the position that the authority under that Act could have jurisdiction to consider the question incidental to the matters provided for therein. It cannot be said that the dispute present in this case is a matter which is incidental to claims arising out of deductions made in payment of wages or delay in making payment of wages. Here, the wages have been paid; there is no complaint of deduction and there is no complaint of any delay in payment and the complaint is only that though minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act have been fixed, the same was not paid by the employer. Para19. Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the other provision relied on by counsel for the writ petitioner, is a provision conferring jurisdiction to deal with a dispute relating to a claim for recovery of money due to a workmen from an employer under a settlement or an award, or under the provisions of Chapter VA and Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act. Chapter VA deals with lay off and retrenchment and chapter VB makes special provisions relating to law of retrenchment and closure in certain establishments. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the claim herein comes under the purview of Chapter VA or VB of the Industrial Disputes Act. This was not a claim based on settlement or award. Even granting that the claim could have been agitated under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, so long as there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act from entertaining a claim which might also come within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act or Payment of Wages Act, it cannot be held that the authority under the Minimum Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, if going by the relevant provision, Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, the court finds that the claim is entertainable by the authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that the argument in that behalf by learned counsel for the writ petitioner deserves to be overruled."

The aforesaid proposition settled by a judgment of Division Bench of this Court, wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the point have also been considered, have not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties.

3 Therefore, the proceeding pending before the court of Minimum Wages Authority in the instant case, cannot be held to be without jurisdiction in any manner contrary to the provision of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

In view of the above, the question raised in the writ petition, having been squarely answered by the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to hereinabove.

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) jk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court