Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: minimum wages act case in Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran ... vs State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To ... on 29 October, 1965Matching Fragments
4. The claim of the workmen was belated and, therefore, should not have been allowed by respondent No. 2.
5. Enhanced wages could, under the law, not have been awarded by respondent No. 2, without enquiring into the financial capacity of the employer.
6. The award was vague inasmuch as it did not give the names of the Octroi Moharrirs, who were to be paid for weekly rests and the amount, to which they were entitled.
5. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is no doubt true that the workmen could claim the difference between the minimum wages fixed by the Government and the amount paid by the Committee to them for the period in dispute, namely 12-5-1960 to 1-6-1961, by filing an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. Since, in the present case, the Government had, admittedly, by a notification dated 1-2-1960 fixed the minimum wages of the employees of the petitioner Committee and those wages were to be paid with effect from 12-5-1960, therefore, the employees had a right to get those wages from the petitioner-Committee. The committee, however, started paying them the wages at the rates fixed by the Government with effect from 1-6-1961 only that is, after more than a year from the date fixed in the notification. The employees demanded the payment with effect from 12-5-1960. but the Committee refused to do that.
A dispute, therefore, arose between the Committee and its workmen. The Government was satisfied that an industrial dispute existed between the parties and it, consequently, referred the same under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to respondent No. 2 for adjudication. If in a particular case, in the opinion of the Government, an industrial dispute has arisen then the same can be referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. No provision of the Minimum Wages Act has been brought to our notice which creates any bar in such an industrial dispute being referred by the Government to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Industrial Disputes Act was passed in the year 1947, whereas the Minimum Wages Act in 1948. In the case the Legislature intended that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not to be applied to cases which were governed by the Minimum Wages Act, then the Legislature would have made a provision to that effect in the latter Act.
In that context, this Act would be called a special. Act. Even those cases which are covered by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, but where an industrial dispute has arisen can be decided under the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no inconsistency between these two Acts and both of them can operate in their own spheres. A somewhat similar point arose for decision before a Bench of this Court in the Jullundur Transport Cooperative Society, Jullundur v. Punjab State, AIR 1959 Punj 34. There the question was whether an industrial dispute between a Cooperative Society and its workmen could under the law be referred to Industrial Tribunal set up under the Industrial Disputes Act or whether such a dispute could only be determined under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act. While dealing with this point, the Bench observed:
6. The learned Tribunal has relied on the Supreme Court decision in the Bombay Gas Co., Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, AIR 1964 SC 752, in holding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute notwithstanding the fact that it could also be decided under the Minimum Wages Act. In that case some award had been made by the Industrial Tribunal in favour of the employees of the Bombay Gas Company. They alleged that they were entitled to a certain benefit on account of the award and, therefore, moved the Labour Court to compute that benefit in terms of money and direct the Company to pay the same to them. The contention of the learned counsel for the Company was that this claim should have been made by the workmen under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936, where the claim had to be made within six months from the date on which the cause of action accrued to the employees. His further submission was that in the State of Maharashtra, by local modification, that period was prescribed as one year.