Ramakant Rajmangal Yadav vs Ramnilan Vijay And Ors. on 8 October, 1987
Further, a Division Bench of this Court (Qazi and Vaze, JJ) in Municipal Council, Achalpur v. Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Rustam and Ors. 1985 (1) C.L.R. 62 observed as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court ... on 8 February, 1985
13. We may also notice another Division Bench Decision of this Court in the Case of Municipal Council, Achalpur v. Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Rustain, 1984 Mah LJ 998. The point involved in this case was whether the Minimum Wages Act was a complete Code and whether the application under Section 33C(2), for claiming minimum wages was maintainable. This decision has considered inter alia the cases of (i) State of Punjab (1980 Lab IC 1084) (SC); (ii) Anand Oil Mills (1979 Lab IC NOC 87) (Andh Pra); (iii) Allahabad Labour Agency (1970 Mah LJ 9) and it is held that remedy provided under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act could not be said to be exhaustive and the said Act cannot be said to be a complete Code and that alternate remedy of Section 33C(2) is not barred.
Arvi Tahsil Co-Operative Agricultural ... vs Dnyaneshwar Krishnaji Dhale on 8 August, 1986
2. The first contention, which is raised in this writ petition by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Minimum Wages Act is a self contained Code and hence application under section 33-C(2) of the Act was not tenable. The said contention however, stands concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Council Achalpur v. Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Rustam and others, 1984 Mh.L.J. 998. The above contention therefore deserves to be rejected. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that this is not an establishment to which the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 is applicable and hence the notification fixing minimum wages for shops and establishments covered by Entry 17 in the Schedule to he Minimum Wages Act would not be applicable to the establishment of the petitioner at Rohana.
1