Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Learned Advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha appearing for the Mazdoor Sabha has submitted that the period of recovery from January, 1998 to March, 1998 and the period of agitation, according to the petitioner, page 53, paragraph 2 of the reply, suggests alleged agitation from March, 1998 onward. SO, this recovery application filed by the Government Labour Officer is not relating to the period of agitation but prior to the period of agitation, so, the allegation made by the petitioner against the Mazdoor Sabha cannot be accepted. He referred to page 30 para 4 and submitted that out of total workmen, 132 workmen have submitted purshis about no objection for receiving wages from the petitioner company. He submits that more than 800 workmen are working with the petitioner co. but only 132 workmen have given such purshis for giving up their statutory right. He submits that the fact of partial lock out has not been declared. He submitted that guarantee has been given by the statutory provisions that each of the workmen will receive at least minimum wages fixed under the notification from the employer. He submitted that in notification fixing minimum wages, the words S work norms or 'out put is not mentioned or not taken into account. He submits that the minimum wages have been fixed under the notification without considering daily out put / norms. He submits that the incentive wages cannot be covered under the definition as per Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act. He submits that the incentive starts when compulsion end. There is no compulsion in incentive, if anybody wants to work on the basis of incentive scheme, then, such workman can work on that basis. He submits that looking to the terms of settlement, incentive is putting compulsion on each work to give particular quantity of work or out put and if it is not given by a particular workman, then, such particular workman will not receive even the minimum wages guaranteed under the Scheme of the Minimum Wages Act. According to his submission, the incentive scheme is defeating the object of Minimum Wages Act and is, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. He submits that the minimum wages fixed under the notification is having only two components and such incentive wages is not one of such two components under the Minimum Wages Act. He also submits that the minimum wages is the statutory mandate which cannot be given good bye under the pretext or guise of incentive wages. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan . He has drawn attention of this Court to para 5 of said decision which will be considered afterwards.