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.

3. Mr. Parikh, who appears for the Central Railway, contends that the Authority was wrong in holding that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) applied to the cases of the employees concerned. The contention advanced by Mr. Parikh before us is slightly different from the contention advanced before the Authority. This contention does not seem to have been advanced before the Authority in the particular from in which it is advanced before us. We have, however, allowed him to raise that contention inasmuch as the facts on which it is based are not disputed, and we are told that the same point arises in many cases before the Authority; moreover Mr. Namjoshi, who appears for the employees, also stated that it would be desirable that this Court decides the point that is urged by Mr. Parikh. Mr. Parikh contends that the object of the said Act is to provide for the minimum rates of wages in the case of scheduled employees, and the Act ensures that in the case of the employees, to whom the Act applies, every employer shall pay at least the minimum wage prescribed by the said Act and rules thereunder. Mr. Parikh contends that while considering the question of over-time wages payable to such employees, the total amount of wages paid by the employer to an employee will have to be considered in order to find out whether the minimum wage, as provided by the said Act and the rules thereunder, is paid to that employee or not. In other words, Mr. Parikh contends that the Railway pays to the employees concerned more than what they would be entitled to according to the provisions of the said Act, and the rules thereunder, including the overtime wages, and hence the employees in these cases are not entitled to any relief.

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.

11. In these applications, it is the contention of the Central Railway that is being actually paid to the employees in question is either equal to or more than the total minimum wages according to the provisions and rules of the said Act. In these cases it is not disputed that the employees n question belong to the category whose employment falls in the category at Serial No. 7 and 8 mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

12. The Authority does not seem to have decided the question whether the employees concerned are paid the total minimum wages as provided by the said Act, as contended by the Central Railway. Hence we shall have to remand these cases back to the Authority. The Authority shall allow the parties to lead further evidence, if they desire to do so. The Authority shall then find out whether the wages, that are actually paid to the employees in these cases, fall short of the total minimum wages as provided by the said Act, including wages of overtime work as provided by Rule 25, as per rates mentioned in the relevant notification. It the wages actually paid fall short, then the employees will be entitled to get the amount by which they fall short.