Jharkhand High Court
Nirmal Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 24 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(97)FLR368], [2003(2)JCR505(JHR)], (2003)IILLJ659JHAR, 2003 LAB. I. C. 2458, 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 873, (2003) 97 FACLR 368, (2003) 6 ALLINDCAS 291 (JHA), (2003) 2 BLJ 193, (2003) 2 JLJR 442, (2003) 3 CURLR 437, (2003) 2 LABLJ 659, (2003) 2 JCR 505 (JHA)
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing notices and the entire proceeding being Minimum Wages Case No. 1/2002 and also for quashing the claim petition filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short the Act). By filing an amendment petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the final order dated 30.6.2002 passed by respondent No. 5, the Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur for making payment of Rs. 2,36,957.80 as less payment of wages of Rs. 23,69,578/-as compensation being ten times of the aforesaid less payment.
2. Petitioner's case is that he is one of the trustees of Public Charitable Trust known as "Indian Institute of Teaching" set up in 1999 by a trust deed having its office at Jamshedpur. The said trust has been set up for establishing and aiding education, social institutions, Dharamsala, University, Medical Institutions, Libraries and Research Centres etc. For the purpose of constructing a school and office building the trust, through the petitioner, entered into an agreement on 18.10-2000 with one Ganga Rai, proprietor of M/s. Ganga Construction, situated at Narenga, Jamshedpur on NH 33. It is contended that the construction of the aforesaid school and office building of the trust is almost complete and the school is being run by the said trust. On 4.4.2002, the absence of the petitioner, the Labour Enforcement Officer cum Inspector conducted inspection of the site of the school building and thereafter served two notices upon the petitioner asking him to produce the papers and documents for inspection and further stating that during inspection 29 labourers were found working to whom less payment of wages than the minimum wages fixed was paid and accordingly the petitioner was directed to make payment of the balance amount to the said labourers. The petitioner said to have appeared before the Labour Enforcement Officer along with all the relevant documents and papers but nothing was done. Instead of making inspection of all the documents the Labour Enforcement Officer filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur by way of claim under Section 20(2) of the said Act which was registered as minimum wages case No. 1/2002. The Sub-Divisional Officer being the authority under the said Act passed final order on 30.6.2002 directing the petitioner to deposit the aforementioned difference of wages and compensation.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 it is inter alia stated that before filing the claim application the administrative approval was granted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi. It is stated that the petitioner was in fact not paying the minimum wages prescribed under the Act and therefore, a claim petition was filed.
4. I have heard Mr. Binod Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Azimuddin, learned JC to GP I.
5. Mr. Poddar learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the claim petition was filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer alleging less payment of wages and therefore the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 20(1) of the Act is ousted for the reason that the petition claiming less payment of wages can be filed only under the Payment of Wages Act or under the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hubli reported in AIR 1969 SC 1335 and in the case of Managa-ness Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha and Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 520 and also the decisions of the Patna High Court and this Court in the case of Binod Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 313 and 2002 (2) JCR 226. Learned counsel secondly submitted that the claim petition is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same was filed on 29.4.2002 alleging less payment of wages for the period 1.11.2000 to 4.4.2002. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Enforcement Officer filed the claim petition without verifying the books bf accounts maintained by the petitioner and without supplying the copy of the inspection report and therefore, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. I have gone through the claim petition dated 27.4.2002 filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 20(1) of the said Act. It was alleged in the said petition that the petitioner made less payment of the wages to the labourers from 1.11.2000 to 4.4,2002 in as much as the male labourers were paid Rs. 40 per day and the female labourers were paid Rs. 35 per day which is less than the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It is therefore, stated in the claim petition that a direction be issued for payment of difference of minimum wages amounting to Rs. 2,36,957/-and also compensation to the extent of Rs. 23,69,578/-. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed final order directing the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under.
"In view of the above discussions and findings this Court concludes that the OP had engaged the said workers in his establishment and the wages paid to them were less than the prescribed rate of wage as fixed by the State Government. Therefore, the claim of State is accepted, In exercise of the power conferred under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, this Court hereby orders the OP to make the payment of Rs. 2,36,958/-(Rs. Two lakh thirty six thousand nine hundred fifty eight only) as relief and also Rs. 23,69,578/- (Rs. Twenty three lakh sixty nine thousand five hundred seventy eight only) as compensation to those twenty eight workers within thirty days from the date of passing of this order. In form both parties."
7. The scope and applicability of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act has been discussed at length by the Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Labour Court, Hubly and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 1335. Their lordships observed as follows :
"We have mentioned these provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, because the language used at all stages in that Act leads to the clear inference that Act is primarily concerned with fixing of rates-rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate of payment for work on a day of rest-and is not really intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment of wages for which provision is made in other laws, such as the Payment of Wages Act. No. 4 of 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947. In Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act also, provision is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under Section 14. This language used in Section 20(1) shows that the Authority appointed under that provisions of law is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relate to rates of wages, rates for payment of work done on days of rest and overtime rates. If there be no dispute as to rates between the employer arid the employee, Section 20(1) would not be attracted. The purpose of Section 20(1) seems to be to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are complied with by the employer in making payments and, if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates; the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under Section 20(1). In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages, overtime or work on off-days is due to a workman or not, the appropriate remedy is provided in the Payment of Wages Act."
8. Similarly in the case of Managanese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Sana, AIR 1991 SC 520, the Supreme Court again observed as follows :
"In the present 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 jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
9. The aforesaid decisions have been followed by the Patna High Court and also by this Court in the case of Sheema Kanoujia v. Regional Labour Commissioner, and it was held that if there is a complaint of less payment of wages, then the Jurisdiction is vested in the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
10. As noticed above, the Sub-divisional Officer in the impugned order has not recorded any finding that there was dispute with regard to minimum wages payable to the workmen, rather, it was the case of less payment of minimum wages. In that view of the matter, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I have no option but to hold that the impugned order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer is without jurisdiction.
11. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer is set aside.