wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2015
1] Secretary, Temasna Gram Panchayat,
Post Temasna, Tah : Kamptee,
District : Nagpur.
2] Sarpanch Temasna Gram Panchayat,
Post Temasna, Tah : Kamptee,
District : Nagpur. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] Rupchand Pundlik Kadu,
Aged-Not known, Occ: Not known,
R/o-Temasna, Post : Temasna,
Tah : Kamptee, District : Nagpur.
2] Block Development Officer, Kamptee,
Tahsil : Kamptee, District : Nagpur.
3] Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. Mahesh Mourya, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. B. P. Maldhure, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 3899 OF 2016
Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Rupchand s/o Pundlik Kadu,
Aged : Major, Occ : Not known,
::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 :::
wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 2/7
R/o-Temasna, Post : Temasna,
Tah : Kamptee, District : Nagpur.
2] Secretary, Temasna Gram Panchayat,
Post : Temasna, Tahsil : Kamptee,
District : Nagpur.
3] Surpanch, Temasna Gram Panchayat,
Post : Temasna, Tah-Kamptee,
District : Nagpur.
4] Block Development Officer,
Kamptee, Tah-Kamptee,
District - Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. Shaikh Majid, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mahesh I. Mourya, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE, J.
th DATE : 5 SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
02] The subject matter of challenge in these two petitions is an order passed by the First Labour Court at Nagpur in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, being IDA No.59 of 2009.
03] Since 31st January, 1988, respondent No.1 was working
::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 :::
wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 3/7
with Temasna Gram Panchayat. His services were terminated on 28th June, 2001. The order was challenged by respondent No.1 in a complaint of unfair labour practice. The complaint came to be dismissed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur, vide its order dated 5th February, 2011. Respondent No.1, thereafter, approached the First Labour Court, Nagpur by the present application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a claim of Rs.1,42,260/- towards arrears of minimum wages and interest thereon. Both the petitioners in the present petition contested the application. By its impugned order dated 26th February, 2015, the Court allowed the application by directing 50 per cent of arrears towards minimum wages computed at Rs.25,650/- to be paid by Gram Panchayat, Temasna and balance 50 per cent by Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. Both Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad have challenged this order.
04] Rule is issued in both petitions and the petitions are taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel. 05] The Labour Court in its impugned order held that the minimum wage, as per notification dated 3rd July, 1990 of the ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 ::: wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 4/7 Government, and on the basis that respondent No.1, being an unskilled employee, came within Zone-III, was fixed at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. As against this minimum wage, respondent No.1 was paid a sum of Rs.100/- per month between July 1990 and December 1998 and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.150/-. Computing, thus, the difference between the minimum wages payable and the amount actually paid to respondent No.1, the Labour Court calculated the total minimum wages payable to respondent No.1 at Rs.51,300/-. In view of the Government Resolution dated 21 st January, 2000, the Court directed 50 per cent wages to be paid by the Gram Panchayat and balance 50 per cent to be paid by the Zilla Parishad on behalf of the State Government.
06] This order is challenged by the Gram Panchayat on the footing that respondent No.1, in a document produced by him in the application under Section 33(C)(2) (Exh.37), claimed that he was not paid minimum wages from 1 st January, 2000. Learned counsel submits that, in that premises, minimum wages could not have been ordered from July 1990. Secondly, it is submitted that Exh.40, on the basis of which the minimum wages have been ordered by the Labour Court, has been a document unilaterally ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 ::: wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 5/7 prepared by the advocate of respondent No.1. It is submitted that this document could not have been made the basis for ordering payment of minimum wages.
07] The quantum of minimum wages payable as per law with effect from July 1990 itself is not the subject matter of challenge. The challenge only pertains to the amount actually paid by the Gram Panchayat to respondent No.1. If that was the controversy, the easiest thing to do was for the Gram Panchayat to produce its record in support of its case that minimum wages were in fact paid to respondent No.1. The bald assertion that minimum wages were paid to respondent No.1 apart, the Gram Panchayat has not attempted to adduce any material before the Court in this behalf. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has not only relied on the circulars fixing minimum wages but also a statement of wages paid during the relevant period to respondent No.1. There is, accordingly, no merit in the challenge to the impugned order. It cannot be said that in the facts of the case, the Court either acted without jurisdiction or committed a serious illegality in exercising the jurisdiction. There is, thus, no merit in Writ Petition No.6191 of 2015. The petition is dismissed.
::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 :::
wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 6/7
08] As far as the companion petition, namely, Writ Petition
No.3899 of 2016, is concerned, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner - Zilla Parishad that the relevant Government Resolution, which provides for bearing of 50 per cent of minimum wages for employees of gram panchayats by the State Government, was issued on 21st January, 2000 and it applied with effect from 1 st January, 2000; there was no other resolution requiring the State Government to pay any part of minimum wages payable to employees of gram panchayat from any interior date. Nothing contrary could be pointed out by any party before this Court. Accordingly, that part of the impugned order, which requires minimum wages for the period upto 31st December, 1999 to be borne by the Zilla Parishad, cannot be sustained. The liability to pay minimum wages ordered by the Court till 31 st December, 1999 will have to be borne squarely by the Gram Panchayat, namely, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6191 of 2015. 09] Accordingly, Rule is partly made absolute in Writ Petition No.3899 of 2016 by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26th February, 2015 insofar as it directs 50 per cent of minimum wages payable to respondent No.1 upto 31 st ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 ::: wp6191.15 and wp3899.16.cJ.odt 7/7 December, 1999 to be borne by the petitioner Zilla Parishad. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
10] During the pendency of these petitions, both Gram Panchayat and Zilla Parishad have, respectively, deposited 50 per cent amounts coming to their share in this Court towards the compliance of the impugned order. Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,650/- deposited by Gram Panchayat, Temasna alongwith accrued interest, if any. As far as the amount deposited by the Zilla Parishad is concerned, respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw a sum corresponding to 50 per cent of the differential minimum wages for the period between 1st January, 2000 and 28th June, 2001, together with accrued interest, if any, corresponding to such amount. The balance amount can be withdrawn, alongwith corresponding accrued interest, if any, by the Zilla Parishad. This amount will have to be paid by Gram Panchayat, Temasna to respondent No.1.
Office to act accordingly.
JUDGE PBP ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/09/2017 01:12:42 :::