Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions briefly narrated are as under : The respondents are working in the several departments under the control of the petitioner municipality. They filed three separate applications claiming wages for the work turned out by them during the weekly holidays or rest days from 1 April, 1955 to 4 March, 1961. They had also claimed compensation from the petitioner but during the trial they filed memos abandoning that claim. The applications Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were filed before the authority appointed under the minimum Wages Act, 1948, for Athni area on 4 and 14 March, 1961 respectively. These applications were admittedly filed beyond six months from the date on with the minimum wages or other amount became payable to the applicants. Hence the respondents filed separate applications for condonation of the delay and admitting their petitions, setting out the cause for not making the applications within the period prescribed under the proviso to S. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The authority issued notices to the present petitioner to show cause why the applications filed by the workmen for condonation of the delay should not be allowed and their applications registered and posted for trial. The petitioner appeared before the authority and filed his objections and after hearing the petitioner and also the workmen the authority allowed the applications filed by the workmen for condonation of the delay in presenting the applications on the ground that they had shown sufficient grounds for not making the applications within the period prescribed under the Act. The authority passed an order on 24 September, 1961. Against the said order the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 125 of 1962 and three other writ petitions to this Court for quashing the order. This Court dismissed those three petitions at the stage of admission. Thereafter Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1961 were clubbed together at the request of the parties and common evidence was recorded in all the cases. The authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the Athni area, as already stated, accepted the claim of the workmen for wages for the work turned out by them during the weekly holidays or days of rest and fixed the wages at overtime rate by its order dated 25 September, 1963. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed these three writ petitions. It is not disputed that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1946, are made applicable to the Athni Municipality and that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Athni, is the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the Athni area. It is not also disputed that the respondents were all workmen employed by the petitioner and were working in the several departments under its control at the appropriate time. But two of them had ceased to be under the employment of the petitioner on the date on which the applications for payment of the wages for the work done by them during weekly holidays or days of rest are filed. The appointed authority has held that the petitioner had not given any weekly holidays or days of rest for the respondents during the relevant period and had extracted work from these employees during the relevant period. The authority rejected the contention of the petitioner that the application filed by the workmen claiming wages for the work turned out by them during weekly holidays or days of rest at the rate not less than overtime rate was not maintainable, It also rejected the contention of the petitioner that the salary paid to the respondents who are monthly rated staff, included in it the wages for the weekly holidays also and as such they are not entitled to claim any wages at a rate not less than the overtime rate. On the basis of these findings the authority calculated the amount due to the several applications (respondents), and it calculated the amounts due to the applicants (respondents) on the basis of the rates shown in the schedule to the notification No. 146/48-1, dated 30 October, 1937, issued by the appropriate authority and directed the petitioner to pay the said amounts to the respondents. The authority directed the parties to bear their own costs. Sri Srinivasa Ayyar, learned counsel who argued these petitions for the petitioner before us, raised the following contentions :

(1) That the claim of the respondents for wages for work done on weekly holidays or rest days is untenable under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The authority had no jurisdiction to direct wages being paid for the work turned out by the respondents on weekly holidays or rest days under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
(2) Even if the authority had such a power to decide the claims of the respondents in respect of the remuneration for the days of rest, it could only award such wages only from 17 September, 1957, the date on which S. 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was amended by Act 30 of 1957 by inserting the words "or in respect of the payment of remuneration for the days of rest or for the work done on such days under Cls. (b) and (c) to Sub-section (1) of S. 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under S. 14."
(c) provide for payment for work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the overtime rate".

(The rest of the section is not necessary for four purpose)

4. As already stated, it is undisputed that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, are made applicable to Athni Municipality. It is also undisputed that the respondents were in the employment of the petitioner during the period for which they advanced their claims for the remuneration for the work done by them during the weekly holidays or days of rest. The rules framed by the Bombay Government under the Minimum Wages Act merely provided for the day of rest, and no provision in them is made as regards the rate of wages payable to the employees who had made to work on the day of rest. The rules framed by the Government of Mysore under the Minimum Wages Act which came into force on 14 May, 1959 have not also fixed any rate of wages payable to the employees who work on the day of rest. It was, therefore, contended, for the petition that under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act the authority had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim for remuneration for the work turned out by the employees on weekly holidays or rest days. Sri Srinivasa Ayyar sought to derive support for his contention from the fact that S. 20 of the Act was amended by Act 30 in the year 1957 by specifically conferring jurisdiction on the authority to hear and decide all claims arising out of payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under Clause (b) or (c) of Sub-section (1) of S. 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under S. 14. At one stage of his arguments Sri Srinivasa Ayyar contended that so long as there is no rule framed by the State Government prescribing the rate of wages payable to an employee who is made to work on a holiday, the workman is not at all entitled to claim any wages for the work turned out by him on weekly holidays or rest days. In other words, he contended that if an employee is made to work on a weekly holiday or on a day of rest, he is not at all entitled to claim any remuneration as there is no rule framed prescribing the rate of wages to be paid to him for such work. When we pointed out to him that S. 13 of the Act which provided for a weekly holiday or a day of rest and had also prescribed a minimum wage payable for a day of work, he abandoned that line of argument. But he strenuously contended that under S. 20 of the Act the authority had no right to decide the dispute relating to the payment of remuneration for the days of rest. The clear wordings of S. 20 of the Act quoted above make it abundantly clear that this contention is untenable.

13. It was lastly contended by Sri Srinivasa Ayyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order passed by the authority directing the petitioner to pay wages at the overtime rate for the work turned out by the workmen who were not in the employment of the petitioner on the date of the presentation of the petition is untenable and is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. He strongly relied upon a decision of Justice Sri Balakrishna Ayyar in Wakefield Estate by proprietor, Hitchi Gowder v. P. L. Perumal, President, Neelamali plantation Workers' Union [1959 - I L.L.J. 397], wherein his lordship has held that the word "employee" as defined in S. 2(1) of the Minimum Wages Act meant a person who is "employed" and it does not include past employees, and that the summary remedy provided by S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act cannot be availed of by past employees. This view was not accepted by Ramchandra Ayyar, J. (as he then was), in Murugan Transports Cuddalore v. P. Rathakrishnan and others (1961 - I L.L.J. 283). His lordship held that S. 20 was intended to give a summary remedy to any person who having been an employee complains that he had not been paid the minimum wage and having regard to the context and the objects of the Act, a discharged employee must be held to be an employee within the provisions of S. 20 and a claim by such an employee under S. 20(2) would be cognizable by the authority under S. 20(1) of the Act. In rejecting a contention similar to the one that was put forward before us, his lordship observed as follows :