Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. These applications were opposed by the Central Railway on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain claims prior to 1957, and that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was not applicable to the employees-applicants, as these employees are entitled to remuneration as per Prescribed Scale of Pay and Hours of Employment Regulations of Central Railway, from the moment they are brought on monthly rates of pay. It was not disputed before the Authority, nor before us, that the employees concerned are railway servants whose employment is "continuous," and their cases fall under Rule 5 of 'Railway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules 1951.' The point that was urged before the Authority was that the rules framed under Section 71E of the Indian Railways Act provide for the remuneration, i.e., wages, payable to employees, including wages for overtime work, the employees concerned are governed by these rules, and hence the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and rules framed thereunder do not apply to the cases of these employees. The Authority over-ruled this contention. It was also urged before the Authority that in view of Rule 32 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply. This contention also was over-ruled. In view of these conclusions, the Authority held that the employees-applicants were entitled to the benefits conferred on them by the Minimum Wages Act, and were entitled to claim wages for overtime work as provided by the said Act, and rules framed thereunder. It is against this decision that these Special Civil Applications are preferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

"25. Contracting out.- Any contract agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby an employee either relinquishes or reduces his right to a minimum rate of wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under this Act shall be null and void in so far as it purports to reduce the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act."

It is clear that Section 25 is intended to secure for scheduled employees minimum wages as prescribed by the said Act, and hence may contract by which an employee agrees to relinquish or reduce his right to get minimum rate of wages is declared void. These are the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, with which we are concerned.

7. Now Rule 25 must be read with Section 14 of the said Act. Material words in section are 'at the overtime rate fixed under this Act.' Section 3(2)(d) makes it clear that the expression 'overtime rate' as used in the said Act means a minimum rate in substitution for the minimum rate otherwise applicable, in respect of overtime work. Section 4 uses the expression 'basic rate of wages,' and lays down what that rate shall consist of. Explanation to Rule 25, while defining the expression 'ordinary rate of wages,' lays down that it shall consist of 'basic wage' plus allowances and concessions referred to in Section 4, but not bonus. Section 13(c) provides to payment for work done on a day of rest at a rate not less than over-time rate. In view of these provisions there can be no doubt that the said Act is intended to secure for employees minimum wages not only for normal work, but also for over-time work, and a duty in cast on the appropriate Government to fix rates of such minimum wages. In these cases the employees' claim is under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 and under any other law or appropriate Government as mentioned in Section 14. The question for consideration is whether the expression' ordinary rate of wages', used in Rule 25, means 'Ordinary contract rate of wages' or 'ordinary minimum rate of wages for normal work fixed by the said Act.' As stated above in view of Sections 3(2)(d), 4, 13 and 14 there can be no doubt that the Legislature intended to fix the minimum rate of wages for over-time work also, and a duty is cast upon the appropriate Government to fix that rate Reading Rule 25 with the above-mentioned provisions of the Act, we think that expression 'ordinary rate of wages' in Rule 25 means the ordinary, i.e. minimum rate for normal work (not overtime work) fixed under the Act, as contrasted with 'overtime rate.' Moreover if the expression 'ordinary rate of wages' in Rule 25 is interpreted to mean 'ordinary contract rate of wages,' such interpretation would enlarge the scope of Rule 25 beyond that of the provisions of the said Act, which cannot be done. In out opinion, the said Act does not interfere with the domain of contract so long as the contract provides the total minimum wages fixed by that Act.

8. The next question for our consideration in whether Rule 25 imposes liability on the employer to pay overtime wages at the rate fixed according to the provisions and rules under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, irrespective of the fact that under the contract of employment the employer pays the employees the total remuneration, including over-time wages, to which they would be entitled according to the provisions and rules under the said Act. Section 25 would not be helpful while considering this question, because it only lays down that if an employee gives up his right to the minimum wages as provided by the said Act, the contract of employment will be void to that extent. The material section would be Section 12. That is the section which determines employer's liability. That section makes it quite clear that the only liability that is imposed on the employer is that he shall pay every employee engaged in a scheduled employment wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by a notification under Section 5 for the class of employment. It is true that Section 13 of the said Act deals with fixing the hours of a normal working day. It also makes provision for a day of rest during seven days. These provisions also are however, made primarily with a view to fix minimum wages, which cannot be done without reference to hours or work and other working conditions. Section 3 Sub-section (2) (d), however, makes it quite clear that 'overtime rate' is a component part of the 'minimum rate of wage.' There is no provision is the said Act, nor in the Rules there under, except Rule 24(4A), which prohibits overtime work such as Section 51 of the Factories Act. On the other hand, Section 14 as well as Rule 25 contemplate over-time work, and provide wages for such overtime work. Our attention was invited to the Railway Servants (Hours of employment) Rules, 1951. Rules 5 of those rules provides that a railway servant, whose employment is continuous, shall not be employed for more than 54 hours a week on the average in any month. Reading this rule along with Rule 25 framed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it is clear that if an employee works for more than 48 hours a week (but not more than 54 hours), he would be entitled to overtime wages as prescribed by Rule 25. Section 14 provides wages for the over-time work done by the employees. Considering the relevant provisions of the said Act, it appears that although certain provisions of the Act deal wit fixing the hours of a normal working day, or with providing a day of rest during the week, the dominant object in making all these provisions is to provide a minimum wage wit reference to the work done by the employee. The main object of the said Act does not seem to be to regulate the mode of work or the hours of work without reference to wages. If that is so, it would be difficult to accept the contention that because hours of work are regulate, the employer is liable to pay for over-time work, even though the total wages paid under the contract of employment are equal to or more than the total minimum wages, including wages for over time work, fixed according to the provisions and rules of the said Act. In our opinion, the liability of the employer is determined by Section 12 of the said Act. Considering the relevant provisions of the said Act together, it appears to us that so long as the employer pays the employees the total minimum wages, including overtime wages, as provided by the said Act and the rules thereunder, the domain of contract is left untouched. The object of the Act seems to be to secure minimum wages for the employees according to the nature and duration or the work done by the employees. In this respect, reference may usefully be made to a decision of the Madras High Court in Chairman, madras Port Trust v. Claims Authority, . In that case, it was urged that there was to default on the part of the employer, inasmuch as the employer had paid the wages prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act, considering the total payments actually made to the employees. While considering this contention, the Court observed: