Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

V.R. Lohiya Chairman vs Ashok Goswami Intuc on 25 April, 2017

                               1


                   W.P.No.4223/2017
25/4/2017
     Shri   Akash      Choudhary,learned        counsel      for
petitioners.
     Heard on admission.
     This   petition      under    Article     226    of     the
Constitution of India         at the instance         of     the
employer       is directed     against the order           dated
28.3.2016 passed          by the    Competent        Authority
under Sub       Section    (2) of    Section     20    of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereby claim of the
employee towards the difference of wages and
towards overtime allowance has been awarded.
     Petitioner is     a Private Security Agency. That
Security of      Laxmi Bai National           Institute       of
Physical    Education        was    contracted out to the
petitioner for a period from 1.4.2014 to 1.4.2017
on the terms and condition that it will pay the
wages to its employees at the rate fixed by the
State Government under the Act of 1948 from
time to time.
     That claim was filed by Respondent No.1

before the Competent Authority Minimum wages under Section 20(2) of 1948 Act for difference of wages and for the wages of the period of 2 holidays and weekly rest days whereon the employees were deployed for work. The petitioner though opposed the claim; however, the Competent Authority on a findings that the employees were paid less than minimum wages directed for payment of difference for the period from April 2014 to July 2015. The Competent Authority also found that the employees were not paid the overtime wages for the period January 2015 to July 2015. Section 12 of 1948 Act provides that:

"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 rates 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 Section 13 of 1948 Act provides for fixing hours for normal working day. Sub Section (1) of Section 13 stipulates"
"(1) In regard to any scheduled employment minimum rates of wages in respect of which have been fixed under this Act, the appropriate Government may -
(a) fix the number of hours of work which shall 3 constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals;
(b) provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days which shall be allowed to all employees or to any specified class of employees and for the payment of remuneration in respect of such days of rest;
(c) provide for payment for work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the overtime rate."

Furthermore Section 14 provides for that Where an employee, whose minimum rates of wages is fixed under this Act by the hour, by the day or by such a longer wage period as may be prescribed, works on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day, the employer shall pay him for every hour or for part of an hour so worked in excess at the overtime rate fixed under this Act or under any law of the appropriate Government for the time being in force whichever is higher.

In the case at hand, cogent material evidence establishes both the counts that is payment less than the minimum wages fixed by State and working beyond the days of work stipulated under Section 13 with no wages for the extra hours.

The competent Authority was thus within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order as 4 would warrant an interference thereof.

In view whereof, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE das