Bombay High Court
Indian Labour Organisation & Ors. vs D.H. Deshmukh, Presiding Officer, 6Th ... on 13 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: [1996(74)FLR2449], (1998)IIILLJ512BOM
Author: F.I. Rebello
Bench: F.I. Rebello
JUDGMENT Tipnis, J.
1. This petition is filed by a trade union - Indian Labour Organisation. The 2nd respondent is Tata Electric Companies, Trombay, Generating Station, Chembur. The 3rd respondent is Yashmun Engineers Ltd. The 4th and 5th respondents are Union of India and State of Maharashtra respectively. The petitioning union by this petition is espousing the case of 15 workmen who are members of the said trade union.
2. The petition seeks to challenge the common order dated 26th June 1995 passed by the learned Member of the 6th Labour Court in 15 applications for payment of minimum wages. All these applications were dismissed. The petition also seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to forthwith fix minimum wages for all factories/establishments not covered by the entries in the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The aforesaid relief of writ of mandamus against the State of Maharashtra was on the basis of the fact that on 11th October 1994 the State Government issued draft notification under the Minimum Wages Act proposing to fix minimum wages in all the industries within the State of Maharashtra, which did not fall in any of the other entries in the schedule. However, thereafter there is inaction and negligence on the part of the State Government and nothing further is being done. One Shri B.J. Pol, Under Secretary, Industry, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32 has filed an affidavit. It is an accepted position therein that such a draft notification has been issued on 11th October 1994. The affidavit further states that suggestions and objections received from the concerned employers from all over the State in respect of the said draft notification were put before the Maharashtra Minimum Wages Advisory Board for consideration. It is further stated in the affidavit that in a meeting of the Advisory Board dated 4.3.1996, it is decided that the said notification may be made applicable to the employees employed in the aforesaid employments. At the same time it was recommended by the Board that the Government while finalising the draft notification should consider some aspects which were enumerated. The Government has received all this on 30.3.1996 and the Government is considering the question of implementation of the said draft notification and after considering the matter the Government will issue the final notification.
3. In view of these facts Shri Gonsalves learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement on behalf of the petitioners that the petition is not being pressed for a writ of mandamus against the State Government directing it to forthwith issue notification fixing minimum wages for all the factories/establishments which are not covered by the existing entries in the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act and accordingly petition is restricted only to the challenge to the order dated 26th June 1995 dismissing the applications of the individual workmen for payment of minimum wages. Accordingly on specific instructions from his clients and specific request of Shri Gonsalves, learned counsel for the petitioners the names of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as well as prayer clauses (c) and (f) are deleted.
4. The petition was taken up for admission and after hearing the parties, all the parties indicated that it would be better if the petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage only. Accordingly we grant Rule. Shri Ramaswamy learned counsel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Tata Electric Companies and Shri Rele learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 - Yashmun Engineers Ltd. waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no. 3.
5. By consent of parties Rule heard forthwith. Heard parties.
6. Initially the petitioner union filed complaint (ULP) No. 50 of 1991 before the learned Presiding Officer 6th Labour Court at Bombay against the 2nd and 3rd respondents under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. The compliant was under items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The complaint was about 17 workmen allegedly employed by Yashmun Engineers Ltd., on the basis of a contract between Yashmun Engineers Ltd. and Tata Electric Companies for the purpose of running air conditioning plant at the power generating station of Tata Electric Companies, Trombay. It was asserted in the complaint that the air-conditioning and refrigeration is an essential integral part of the Power Generation and without the air-conditioning and refrigeration Tata Electric Companies cannot function water coolers, and air-conditioning were installed by M/s. Voltas Ltd. and M/s. Blue Star Ltd. in or about 1985 and for a initial period the said company looked after the maintenance. However, thereafter it appears that there was a contract between the Tata Electric Companies and Yashmun Engineers Ltd. for the maintenance of the aforesaid air-conditioning and refrigeration in Tata Electric Companies, Trombay Generation Station and the workmen concerned in this compliant were employed by Yashmun Engineers Ltd. though they continuously worked for the maintenance of the air-conditioning and refrigeration at the establishment of Tata Electric Companies, Trombay. It was contended in the compliant that there were settlements signed between the Union and the respondent No. 2 in respect of service conditions of their workmen but the present workmen were not given benefits in terms of any of the said such settlements. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was contended by the union that in fact and in law these workmen are employees of Tata Electric Companies and not of the alleged contractor i.e. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. They contended that the alleged contract is only to deprive the workmen the permanency and other benefits under the employment of Tata Electric Companies. It was complained, as these workmen have joined the union their services were likely to be terminated and they obtained ad-interim exparte order directing the respondents to maintain status-quo. It appears that the exparte order passed by the Labour Court was stayed by the Industrial Court by an exparte order and on 3.4.1991 Yashmun Engineers Ltd. terminated the services of 13 workmen, services of 2 other workmen having been already terminated on 14.2.1991 and 15.3.1991. It was asserted that this act of termination was by way of victimisation and was a clear case of indulging in unfair labour practices. It was asserted that fresh contract workers were engaged in place of present workers. Initially as the services were not terminated, relief of injunction was sought but after termination, relief of re-instatement was asked for in the complaint. In the complaint both Tata Electric Companies and Yashmun Engineers Ltd. took up a specific plea that the workmen were the employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. and not of Tata Electric Companies.
7. After recording evidence and hearing the parties the Labour Court in the aforesaid complaint held that Yashmun Engineers Ltd. is the employer of these workmen. It further held that the termination was in undue haste and by its judgment and order dated 16.6.1994, the learned Presiding Officer of the 6th Labour Court held that Yashmun Engineers Ltd. had terminated the services of the concerned employees by engaging in unfair labour practices. The said Yashmun Engineers Ltd. was directed to pay to the 15 employees concerned compensation equivalent to 3.33 years' wages based on the last drawn wages of the concerned employees in addition to the backwages from the date of termination till the date of order, as already paid and received. The complaint as against Tata Electric Companies was dismissed. The aforesaid order dated 16.6.1994 has been challenged both by the petitioner union as well as Yashmun Engineers Ltd. by filing two different revision petitions. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. has challenged the finding that it has engaged itself in unfair labour practices and obviously the ultimate relief granted i.e. payment of compensation whereas the Union challenged the order only to the extent, it holds that Yashmun Engineers Ltd is the employer and that Tata Electric Companies is not the employer of the concerned workmen. Both these revisions are pending disposal. It is also an agreed position that at the instance of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. the order dated 16.6.1994 passed in the aforesaid Complaint (ULP) No. 50 of 1991 is stayed, and as such no amount by way of compensation has been paid to any of the workman though because of certain interim orders passed by this court in some earlier proceedings not only the backwages but wages till disposal of the complaint have been paid to the concerned workmen.
8. Thereafter 15 workmen concerned filed separate applications before the very learned Judge of the 6th Labour Court claiming payment of minimum wages from the date of their appointment till the date of their termination. In the said applications, these workmen pointed out the history of the matter and contended that these workmen are not being paid wages and benefits extended to the workmen employed by the Tata Electric Companies and it is the stand of the Tata Electric Companies and also of the Yashmun Engineers Ltd. that these workmen are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. It was further contended that these workmen are not being paid according to the settlement or agreements governing the wage scales and other service conditions of the employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. is an engineering industry engaged in the business of manufacturing electric and engineering goods and re-insulation of H.T. Motors and is also carrying out work of repairs and servicing of airconditioners and refrigerators. Tata Electric Companies is engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity, which is not a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act. However, an engineering industry is a scheduled industry or employment under the Minimum Wages Act and as such when Tata Electric Companies and Yashmun Engineers Ltd. both contended that these workmen are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd., the workmen ought to have been paid wages and benefits as per the settlements or agreements or at any rate, at the rate of minimum wages applicable to the engineering industry under the Act. However, they are being paid at much lower scale. It was contended that during the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, anticipating long delay in disposal of the complaint, they had prayed that respondents therein i.e. Tata Electric Companies and Yashmun Engineers Ltd. be directed to pay retrospectively minimum wages payable under the Act, during the pendency of the complaint. Initially the 4th Labour Court, granted reliefs and the matter was carried to this court and in this court consent terms were filed under which ad-interim order of the trial court as well as order of the revisional court was set aside and Yashmun Engineers Ltd. was directed to pay the amount equivalent to last paid wages to the concerned employees, until disposal of the interim reliefs applications. It was also provided in the said order that the employees may file applications under the Minimum Wages Act if they so desire. It was contended by the workmen that as such Tata Electric Companies and Yashmun Engineers Ltd. both jointly and severally are bound and liable to pay to the workmen, minimum rate of wages applicable to the engineering industry under the Minimum Wages Act.
9. The application specifically mentions that this application is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the workmen in the aforesaid complaint, which matter is pending before the Industrial Court in revision application filed by the Union concerned as well as by Yashmun Engineers Ltd. By giving details of the date of appointment and designations and the monthly wage, it was asserted that the workmen were being paid much below the minimum rate of wage applicable to the engineering industry under the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act and, therefore, the workmen claimed difference between the wages already paid and the wages which ought to have been paid under the relevant notification applicable to the engineering industry from the date of appointment till 31st July 1993. It was made clear that with a view to avoiding any controversy, the wages and benefits which are available to the lowest category of workmen i.e. unskilled in the engineering industry under the notification under the Minimum Wages Act, were claimed. It was further pointed out that in the absence of details regarding actual dues no specific amount is claimed. However, it was urged that the court would give directions to the opponents to furnish details at appropriate stage upon making of an application by the workmen in that behalf.
10. All these 15 separate applications bearing application (IDA) Nos. 892 to 905 of 1993 and 488 of 1994 were disposed of by the very learned Judge and Presiding Officer of the 6th Labour Court Bombay on 20th June 1995. The applications were made under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the court the Tata Electric Companies contended that Tata Electric Companies is not an engineering industry and that the workmen concerned were never employed by Tata Electric Companies, as such there cannot be any claim as against Tata Electric Companies. It was specifically contended that all the workmen were engaged by Yashmun Engineers Ltd. and workmen are the employees of the Yashmun Engineers Ltd. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. on its part accepted the position that the workmen are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. though it was contended that they were engaged on purely temporary basis and services were co-terminus with the contract, which Yashmun Engineers Ltd. had with Tata Electric Companies. It was specifically contended by Yashmun Engineers Ltd. that though the activities of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. fall within the definition of engineering industry, the contract work carried out by the workmen concerned had no nexus with the said activities. Similarly the activities like generation and distribution of electricity carried out by Tata Electric Companies do not fall in any of the scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act. As such the workmen are not entitled to claim minimum wages under the notification applicable to the engineering industry.
11. The learned Judge by his common order held that the applications are not maintainable. He held that only Yashmun Engineers Ltd. are scheduled employments. However it was held that the applicants are not entitled to recover any amounts or benefits as claimed and by his judgment and order dated 20th June 1995 all the 15 applications were dismissed.
12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid common order, petition was filed by the Indian Labour Organisation - a trade union espousing the case of these 15 workmen. However, upon objection being raised that in as much as 15 workmen had made 15 separate applications, only those workmen can challenge the order, petition was amended and 10 out of 15 workmen i.e. Shri S.R. Panchal, Shri Eknath Ganpat Khedekar, Shri Ravindra Kishan Kurhade, Shri Shantaram D. Neharkar, Shri Sanjay Pathare, Shri Vinod Vishnu Lonari, Shri Jayendra D. Raut, Shri Vilas Gopal Shirodkar, Shri Prabhakar C. Kahandare and Shri Pramod Gajanan Darekar were added as petitioners to the present petition.
13. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it is clear that no oral evidence was adduced by the parties and the matter was decided on documents and oral as well as written arguments. The learned Judge held that the workmen were employed by Yashmun Engineers Ltd. as a contractor to work with Tata Electric Companies. The workmen were posted at the place of Tata Electric Companies and actually worked in the premises of Tata Electric Companies. The learned Judge therefore concluded that those workmen were employed in the establishment of Tata Electric Companies. The learned Judge therefore felt that obviously it could not be said that the workmen were employed in the establishment of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. in the engineering industry. The learned Judge held that though the establishment of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. is a scheduled employment the workmen would not be entitled to claim minimum wages prescribed for the scheduled employment, as they were working on the premises of Tata Electric Companies, where they were actually employed. The learned Judge further concluded that in as much as Tata Electric Companies is admittedly not one of the scheduled employments under the Minimum Wages Act, there is no question of workmen being entitled to payment of any minimum wages under the Act. The learned Judge specifically held that there does not appear to be employer employee relationship between the workmen and Tata Electric Companies and, therefore, there is no existing right made out by the workmen so far as Tata Electric Companies is concerned. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. contended that in the earlier proceedings in the complaint the workmen are held to be the employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. and the matter is pending in the revisional court and, therefore, unless the said issued is decided, finally it would be premature and unjustified to fix liability of minimum wages on either Tata Electric Companies or Yashmun Engineers Ltd. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. further submitted that the regular business activities of the company which fall within the definition of engineering activities have no nexus with the contract work on which the workmen were engaged. According to Yashmun Engineers Ltd. unless and until it is established that the workmen were employed in the scheduled employment, claim for minimum wages could not stand. The learned Judge held that these submissions well founded. On this logic the learned Judge held that the workmen have failed to make out an existing right to the claim and therefore, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss all the applications by his judgment and order dated 20th June 1995.
14. Shri Gonsalves, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the stand taken by Tata Electric Companies as well as Yashmun Engineers Ltd., it is clear that both agree that the workmen are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. It is on this position that the workmen have made this application because in the submission of Shri Gonsalves, either the workmen must get the benefit similar to the workmen engaged by Tata Electric Companies, as it is the case of the workmen that they are employees of Tata Electric Companies or they must get wage scale and benefits of the regular employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. In any case Shri Gonsalves submitted that if they are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd., as is contended by Tata Electric Companies as well as Yashmun Engineers Ltd. minimum wages to which the workmen are entitled, is the minimum wages as prescribed by law. Shri Gonsalves contended, on the basis of assertions of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. that they are employees and the workmen are their employees and in as much as Yashmun Engineers Ltd. is a scheduled employment under item 36 of schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, the workmen ought to be paid atleast minimum wages under the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, as applicable to the employments in engineering establishments. Denying this benefit to the workmen, in the submission of Shri Gonsalves, would be keeping the workmen high and dry and they cannot be denied this benefit until the issue regarding who is the employer is finally adjudicated upon. Shri Gonsalves submitted that the applications are made on the basis of finding recorded by the Labour Court that it is the Yashmun Engineers Ltd. who is their employer. Shri Gonsalves therefore contended that rejection of the applications by the Learned Judge on the reasoning is obviously incorrect and is required to be set aside.
15. Shri Rele appearing for the Yashmun Engineers Ltd. on the other hand firstly contended that the Learned Judge was more than justified in not considering the applications in as much as issue as to who is the employer was still pending consideration of the Industrial Court and unless the workmen categorically accept Yashmun Engineers Ltd. as their employer, it is not proper to fasten any monetary liability upon Yashmun Engineers Ltd. Shri Rele next submitted that in any case assuming that the matter could be considered on the basis that the workmen are workmen of Yashmun Engineers Ltd., even then on proper interpretation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the notification issued for employments in engineering industries under item 36 of the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, cannot be attracted in the case of present workmen. Shri Rele in this behalf referred to several provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the entries in the schedule and contended that what is meant by employment, is actual nature of work and the place of work. Shri Rele submitted that the workmen, though employed by Yashmun Engineers Ltd., never worked on the premises of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. nor were they any way concerned with any regular activities of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. These workmen were constantly working on the premises of Tata Electric Companies and were concerned only with the work of maintenance of refrigeration and air-conditioning and in as much as admittedly Tata Electric Companies is not doing any scheduled employment, the workmen will not be covered by the notification issued under item 36 of the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. Shri Rele submitted that the very same concern or establishment may fall under different items of the schedule. Shri Rele therefore submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the workmen will not be entitled to any benefit of minimum wages under the notification issued under item 36 of the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act.
16. Shri Ramaswamy learned counsel appearing for the Tata Electric Companies has adopted the submissions made by Shri Rele.
17. We have gone through the various provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. We have also perused the judgment and order of the learned Judge and on the basis of the submissions made before us we are unable to accept the interpretation as is sought to be put by Shri Rele learned counsel for the Yashmun Engineers Ltd.
18. The preamble of the Minimum Wages Act, shows that the Act is made to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. The Act nowhere defines word 'employment'. Word 'employer' is defined in section 2(e) which is as under :
"'employer' means any person who employs whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26 :
i) in a factory where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person named under cl. (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948) (as manager of the factory);
ii) in any scheduled employment under the control of any Government in India in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person or authority appointed by such Government for the supervision and control of employees or where no person or authority is so appointed the head of the department;
iii) in any scheduled employment under any local authority in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person is so appointed the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority;
iv) in any other case where there is carried on any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the employees or for the payment of wages";
Section 2(g) defines scheduled employment as under :
"'Scheduled Employment' means an employment specified in the schedule, or any process or branch or work forming part of such employment".
Section 2(h) defines wages as under :
"'wages' means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money which would if the terms of the contract of employment express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment (and includes house rent allowance) but does not include....
Section 2(j) defines 'employee' as under :
"'employee' means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed, and includes an out worker to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person, to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted, or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be carried out either in the home, of the outworker or in some other premises not being premises under the control (and management of that other person; and includes for the purposes of sections 20, 21, 22, 22-A, 22-B, 22-C, and 22-D any person who has been an employee and who has ceased to be so by reason of superannuation, retirement, dismissal, removal, discharge, termination of service, or otherwise howsoever) and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the Union".
Section 3 provides that the appropriate Government shall in the manner provided fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Part I of Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to either part by notification under section 27. Section 16 provides that where an employee does two or more classes of work to each of which a different minimum rate of wages is applicable, the employer shall pay to such employee in respect of the time-respectively occupied in each such class of work, wages at not less than the minimum rate in force in respect of each such class.
19. Taking us through these provisions and the fact that each of the items in the Schedule Part I specifically uses word 'employment', Shri Rele submitted that for the purpose of determining the issue as to whether a particular workman is entitled to the benefit of any notification issued under any specific item of Schedule Part I or the Minimum Wages Act, one has to find out the nature of work and the place of work at which the workman is actually working. Shri Rele submits that even though the workmen are employed by Yashmun Engineers Ltd. in as much as they are physically and actually working on the premises of Tata Electric Companies, which is admittedly not engaged in the employment of engineering, these particular workmen though employed by Yashmun Engineers Ltd., which has been engaged in the employment of engineering will not be covered by any notification issued under item 36 of Schedule Part I to Minimum Wages Act.
20. On proper interpretation of all the provisions we find it difficult to accept the submission of Shri Rele. Meaning of word 'employment' as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is as follows.
"'One's regular trade or profession'".
It is significant that the Act has not defined the word 'employment' but has defined words, employer, employee as also wages.
21. On a conjoint reading of words employer, scheduled employment, wages, and employee, we have no manner of doubt that the word 'employment' used in the Act cannot be understood dehors employer and employee. In other words one must ask a question as to who is the employer of the employee concerned. Once employer is determined, the employment in which such employer is engaged will determine the issue. If such an employment is one of the scheduled employment, then the employee of such employer, must get the benefit of any notification issued under the relevant item of Schedule Part I to the Minimum Wages Act. Where a workman actually works or the nature of work of the workman concerned, in out opinion will not matter at all. May be under the notification itself Government may prescribe different rates of minimum wages for different classes of workmen in the scheduled employment. Nevertheless all such workmen will be covered by the scheduled employment and consequently by any notification issued under a relevant item of Schedule Part I of the Minimum Wages Act. Once the employer i.e. Yashmun Engineers Ltd. asserted that the workmen concerned are its employees and once it is an agreed position that undisputedly Yashmun Engineers Ltd. are engaged in the employment in the engineering industry, the workmen concerned must be held to be governed by the notification issued under item 36 of Schedule Part I of the Minimum Wages Act. That they are working on the premises of Tata Electric Companies or that they are doing some work which has nothing to do with the engineering industry, as such in our opinion is irrelevant. The employee must be in the employment of the employer engaged in a particular scheduled employment. The word 'employment' has to be and could be understood only with reference to the relationship of employer and employee and not dehors the same.
22. In view of the aforesaid we are of the clear opinion that the fact that these workmen were working on the premises of and for Tata Electric Companies is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether they are working in the schedule employment. Once it is held that the workmen are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. and further that Yashmun Engineers Ltd. is falling under item 36 of Schedule Part I i.e. "employment in engineering industry", the workmen must be held to be governed by the notification issued by the State Government for employment under item 36 of Schedule Part I of the Minimum Wages Act.
23. We are also not impressed by the submission of Shri Rele that until the issue as to who is the employer of these workmen is finally determined, applications should be held to be premature and should not be disposed of. If this submission is accepted it would mean that the workmen concerned would not get the benefit as workmen either of Tata Electric Companies or even minimum wages payable to them as workmen of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. Such a result and consequence cannot be countenanced in the interest of justice. When Tata Electric Companies as well as Yashmun Engineers Ltd. have consistently asserted and do not dispute even at this stage the position that the workmen are the workmen of Yashmun Engineers Ltd., we do not see any good ground why the applications of the workmen should not be determined on the basis of the position accepted by the employer himself.
24. We also see no good reason that though only 10 out of 15 workmen have individually impleaded themselves as petitioners, why the remaining should not get the same benefit as the issue was pure question of law.
25. Accordingly we quash and set aside the order dated 20th June 1996 by holding that the applications are maintainable and the learned Judge of the 6th Labour Court shall determine the exact amount payable to each of the workmen on the basis that the workmen are employees of Yashmun Engineers Ltd. and they are governed by the notification issued under item 36 of the Schedule Part I to the Minimum Wages Act. As to the period for which each individual workman is entitled and as to the exact amount to which each individual workman is entitled, shall obviously be determined by the Learned Judge after hearing both sides. However, we make it clear that Yashmun Engineers Ltd. shall pay to each of the workman for such period as it considers the workman concerned is entitled and such amount as it considers payable to each workman on the basis that the minimum wage is payable to such workmen under the notification issued under item 36 of Schedule Part I to the Minimum Wages Act.
26. Rule made absolute, accordingly. The matter is remitted back for decision in the light of the aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy expected.
27. At this stage on the request of learned counsel for the Yashmun Engineers Ltd., we direct that the aforesaid order shall be stayed till 15th October 1996 with a view to enabling them to approach the Apex Court.