Maharashtra State Mining ... vs Regional Labour Commissioner ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1000 Bom

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.

1. As the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is identical, writ petitions are taken together for final hearing.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

3. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the challenge involved in these writ petitions is limited. He contends that the petitioners never disputed their liability to pay minimum wages to the employees. The Notification, revising the minimum wages, issued on 19-3-1991 was actually received by the petitioners on 8-7-1991 and as during that period the rainy season was on, the activities of petitioners were at its lower ebb and hence the difference in amount of minimum wages could not be paid immediately. He states that said difference in minimum wages have been actually paid on 31-10-1991 and the application under Section 20 sub-section (1) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was moved by respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1 on 31-12-1991. He contends that as the application has been moved after the said difference was paid and as the applicability of rate of minimum wages was never disputed by the petitioners proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act were not maintainable before respondent No. 1. He contends that ignoring this, respondent No. 1 has saddled compensation upon the petitioners which is equal to the amount of difference in minimum wages which petitioners have paid on 31-10-1991. The said amount which is saddled as compensation by respondent No. 1 is Rs. 7,545/- in Writ Petition No. 1213 of 1993, Rs. 1,382/- in Writ Petition No. 1214 of 1993 and Rs. 34,934/ - in Writ Petition No. 1215 of 1993. He contends that the compensation as ordered is thus without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (Athani Municipality v. Labour Court, Hubli) reported at and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in the case of (Nirmal Singh v. State of Jharkhand) reported at 2003(97) F.L.R. 368. He states that same view has been taken by the Jharkhand High Court, after following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents, in their respective petitions, have argued that the establishment of the petitioners was inspected on 8-7-1991 and the fact that the petitioners were not paying minimum wages was discovered on that date. They contend that along with Inspection Note, opportunity was given to the petitioners to make good the shortfall and as that was not made good, ultimately the application was filed on 31-12-1991. The learned Counsel for the respondents contend that the fact that payment of said difference was actually paid on 31-10-1991 will not make any bearing on the date of application because even after period of 31A months of inspection, said amount was not paid and the direction issued by respondent No. 2 to pay minimum wages was not complied with. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, have got no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The perusal of provisions of Section 20 sub-section (1) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, reveal that all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages are amenable to jurisdiction under said provisions and under sub-section (2), an employee who makes such a claim can make an application before the authority appointed under sub-section (1). Under subsection (3), the said authority has been empowered to order payment of compensation which may not exceed 10 times the amount of shortfall. However, it is to be seen that such compensation can be awarded when an application under sub-section (2) is made. Thus, sub-section (3) of Section 20 is not an independent provision and as such power thereunder cannot be exercised by the authority if the dispute is not amenable to its jurisdiction under Section 20 sub-section (1) of the Act. The Apex Court in Athani Municipalities case. (supra) has negatived the challenge of employer that Labour Court could not have taken cognizance of claims of workers under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, because of Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned above considers this controversy and in para 6, after reproducing the provisions of Section 13, Section 14 and Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :

If there be no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employees, Section 20(1) would not be attracted. The purpose of Section 20(1) seems to be to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are complied with by the employer in making payments and, if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates, the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the authority appointed under Section 20(1). In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages, and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages, overtime or work on off-days is due to a workman or not, the appropriate remedy is provided in the Payment of Wages Act. If the payment is withheld beyond the time permitted by the Payment of Wages Act even on the ground that the amount claimed by the workman is not due, or if the amount claimed by the workman is not paid on the ground that deductions are to be made by the employer, the employee can seek his remedy by an application under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. In cases where Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act may not provide adequate remedy, the remedy can be sought either under Section 33-C of the Act or by raising an industrial dispute under the Act and having it decided under the various provisions of that Act In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant that Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act should be interpreted as intended to cover all claims in respect of minimum wages or overtime payment or payment for days of rest even though there may be no dispute as to the rates at which those payments are to be claimed. It is true that, under Section 20(3), power is given to the Authority dealing with an application under Section 20(1) to direct payment of the actual amount found due; but this, it appears to us, is only an incidental power granted to that Authority, so that the directions made by the Authority under Section 20(1) may be effectively carried out and there may not be unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The power to make orders for payment of actual amount due to an employee under Section 20(3) cannot, therefore, be interpreted as indicating that the jurisdiction to the Authority under Section 20(3) has been given for the purpose of enforcement of payment of amounts and not for the purpose of ensuring compliance by the employer with the various rates fixed under that Act. This interpretation, in our opinion, also harmonises the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act which was already in existence when the Minimum Wages Act was passed.

6. Findings of Hon'ble Apex Court in (Mangnese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha) 1991(62) F.L.R. 75 (S.C.) are also identical. Thus, from the said observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is more than clear that if there is no dispute as to the rates of wages between employer and employees, Section 20(1) is not attracted. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that the Act is primarily concerned with fixing of rates, rates of minimum wages, overtime rates and is not really intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment of wages for which provision is made in other laws. In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of minimum wages, the remedy to recover such undisputed amount lies elsewhere and as has been pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act or under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act. This judgment is also followed by the learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in the judgment reproduced above and it has been held that if there is a complaint of less payment of wages, the jurisdiction is vested with the authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

7. In the facts of present case also, I find that the petitioners have never disputed their liability to pay wages as per the notification dated 19-3-1991. In view of this, it is clear that there was no dispute in relation to rate of wages revised /fixed under Minimum Wages Act to the establishment of the petitioners and as such, cognizance of matter taken by respondent No. 1 in jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of Minimum Wages Act is unwarranted and without jurisdiction. It is, therefore, clear that the authority could not have saddled compensation by taking recourse to Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act. The impugned order passed in Writ Petition No. 1213 of 1993 dated 6-4-1993. Writ Petition No. 1214 of 1993 dated 29-3-1993 and Writ Petition No. 1215 of 1993 dated 31-3-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 are, therefore, quashed and set aside. Writ petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.