M/S Auto Cars, Aurangabad vs State Of Maharashtra And Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 100 Bom

                                             1




                                                                                 
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                        
                              WRIT PETITION NO.5126 OF 2015

    M/s Auto Cars,
    14 Km. Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road,




                                                       
    Chittegaon village, Tal.Paithan,
    Dist. Aurangabad                                                 PETITIONER




                                           
    VERSUS 

    1. The State of Maharashtra,
                               
        (Through Dy.Commissioner of Labour)
        Maljipura, Station Road, Aurangabad,
                              
    2. Videocon Group Employees Union
        (Through its President/General Secretary),
        N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad.                                      RESPONDENTS
      

    Mr.Ashok Patil with Mr.B.R.Kaware, Advocate for the petitioner.
    Mr.T.K.Prabhakaran, Advocate for respondent No.2.
   



    Mrs.V.A.Shinde, AGP for respondent No.1. 

                                     ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)





                                          RESERVED ON : 31/07/2015

                                     PRONOUNCED ON : 14/08/2015

    J U D G M E N T : 

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28/01/2015

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Authority

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (in short, Act of 1948)

Aurangabad, in Appl. (MWA) No.1/2013.

3. The submissions of Mr.A.V.Patil on behalf of the petitioner is as

under :-

a. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of

b.

transportation, ware house services and logistics. The petitioner has its own buses, cars, tractors and forklifts.

c. The petitioner also hires different types of vehicles for rendering transportation services to its customers. d. Respondent No.2 is the Employees' Union which represents the claimant workers, who are mentioned in the annexure at page

36 to 63.

e. The said Union submitted a charter of demands on 16/01/2013 to the petitioner claiming wage rise benefits and other long term benefits.

f. Several meetings were conducted for exploring an amicable settlement.

g. The conciliation proceedings failed and hence the competent authority referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at

Aurangabad bearing Ref.(IT) No.5/2013.

h. The respondent/Union moved Application (MWA) No.1/2013 before the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

i. By the impugned judgment dated 28/01/2015, the competent authority allowed the application and directed the petitioner to

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

pay the difference of minimum wages as per the statement Exh. 1 to each of the applicant members for the period

01/07/2013 to 31/10/2013.

j. An amount equal to the difference of minimum wages was directed to be paid as compensation as per Exh.1.

k. The Union misrepresented before the competent authority that all the drivers mentioned in the list were skilled 'A' workers and were in fact falling within the category of skilled 'B'

workers.

l.

The impugned order could not have been passed since the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "Public Transport" and therefore the impugned judgment is

unsustainable.

m. When charter of demands were pending before the Industrial Tribunal in the reference case, the competent authority under

the Minimum Wages Act, could not have taken up the issue as

regards the wage structuring of the said employees. n. Section 2(g) and 2(h) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 would indicate that none of the claimants were entitled for the

difference as was granted by the competent authority. o. A notification dated 20/07/2010 was issued by the Industries, Energy and Labour Department by which the minimum rates of wages applicable to the employees employed in the

scheduled employment viz. employment in public motor transport, thereby revising the basic minimum rates of wages per month in relation to Zone I and Zone II mentioned in the Schedule thereunder.

p. The total emoluments paid to the claimant workers under a settlement is much higher than the minimum rates of wages

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

prescribed by the notification dated 20/07/2010. q. About 10 persons amongst the claimants have taken Voluntary

Retirement Scheme (VRS) and cannot stake any claim before the competent authority r. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Airfreight Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1999 SC 2459 and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Sunrise Industries Vs. Sunrise

Industries Unit Workers Association, 2013 (136) FLR 488 = 2013 LLR 60.

4. Mr.Prabhakaran, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent No.2 Union submits as under :-

a. The petitioner has obtained registration certificate to work a

Motor Transport Undertaking by application dated

24/06/2014.

b. Certificate of registration is granted on the same date 24/06/2014.

c. The said certificate is issued with retrospective effect from 2006.

d. On one single date 24/06/2014, the Chief Inspector, Motor Transport Workers Act, Maharashtra, BKC, Bandra-East,

Mumbai - 51 has issued the said certificate and renewed it till 31/12/2014.

e. The said authority has then renewed the said certificate on 10/12/2014 from 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2015. f. The mystery with regard to the above stated certificate of registration is undisputedly linked with the pending claim of

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

the workers in Application (MWA) No.1/2013. g. The definition u/s 2(h) of the Act of 1948 will clearly indicate

that the claim of the workers was sustainable. h. It is conceded that all the workers fall in skilled 'B' and not in skilled 'A' in Zone No.II, whereby the amount assessed by the

competent authority will be reduced as there is a difference of Rs.200/- in the basic minimum rates of wages in between skilled 'A' and skilled 'B'. Similarly, there would be a difference

in the special allowance payable to them.

i.

Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act of 1988), defines a private service vehicle.

j. Section 2 (35) of the Act of 1988 defines public services.

k. The competent authority has considered the contentions of both the sides and has arrived at a proper conclusion. l. The compensation payable to each of the employees is

specifically arrived at in Exh.1 to the impugned judgment.

m. Section 25 of the Act of 1948 prevents Contracting Out. n. Section 20(3)(i) prescribes penalty to the maximum of 10 times of the difference in the wages paid and yet, the competent

authority has granted compensation only to the extent of one times the difference payable, which is reasonable. o. The jurisdiction of the appropriate authority to deal with non payment of minimum wages is restricted only for a duration of

6 months at a time.

p. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Ponnamalan Vs. Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1993(II) CLR 494, judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of Management of Senthil Motor Service, Tiruppur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore and

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

another, 2009 (II) CLR 71, judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Krishna Flour Mills and others

Vs.Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka and others, 1998 II CLR 929.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates

and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance.

6.

The petitioner has stated that its business includes

transportation of trucks, containers, goods transport trucks, tempos,

buses, mini buses, tractors, forklifts, etc. It also provides drivers to

its customers. Some vehicles are owned by the petitioner and some

are hired or are owned by the customers of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner provides services of drivers and vehicles to its

client companies to bring the employees from Aurangabad to the

factory premises and vice-a-versa as a part of the conveyance

services. Direct and indirect work force is engaged by the petitioner.

8. Section 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act of 1961 defines motor transport

undertaking and motor transport worker as follows :-

"2(g) "motor transport undertaking" means a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier ;

(h) "motor transport worker" means a person who is employed in

a motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the

arrival, departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor, cleaner, station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk, cash clerk, depot clerk, time-keeper,

watchman or attendant, but except in section 8 does not include -

(I) any such person who is employed in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948) ;

(II) any such person to whom the provisions of any law for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops or commercial establishments

apply ;

9. A "motor transport undertaking" therefore is such an

undertaking which engages in the business of carrying passengers or

goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private

carrier. The petitioner has obtained registration as a 'Motor

Transport Undertaking'. This, therefore, means that a vehicle offered

on rental basis and used as a mode of transporting or carrying

passengers or workers, for hire or reward for offering such services,

can be said to be a motor transport undertaking. The petitioner is,

therefore, squarely covered by this definition.

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

10. A "motor transport worker" is a person who is employed in a

motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency as is

defined in Section 2(h) hereinabove. The Act of 1961 u/s 1(4) applies

to every "motor transport undertaking" and "motor transport

workers". The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Government Transport Service Vs. S.L.Mishra, 2002(3) LLJ 265, is

therefore applicable to this case.

11. Section 2 (h) of the Act of 1948 defines "wages" and also

indicates those payments which are not to be included in the

definition of 'wages', which is as under :-

"wages" means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in

terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done

in such employment, [and includes house rent allowance], but does not include--

(i) the value of--

(a) any house-accommodation, supply of light,

water, medical attendance, or

(b) any other amenity or any service excluded by general or special order of the appropriate Government;

(ii) any contribution paid by the employer to any Pension Fund or Provident Fund or under any scheme of social

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

insurance;

(iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling

concession;

(iv) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his

employment; or

(v) any gratuity payable on discharge;"

12. Section 2(i) of the Act of 1948 defines an employee as under :-

"2(i) "employee" means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or

clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed; and includes an out- worker to whom any articles or materials are given out by

another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered,

ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be carried out either in the home

of the out-worker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not include any member of

the Armed Forces of the [Union]."

13. It is, therefore, apparent that the wages mean all

remunerations which are capable of being expressed in terms of

money and which are payable to an employee as per the terms of the

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

contract of employment and includes house rent allowance as well.

14. Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines a "Private

Service Vehicle" and section 2(35) defines a "Public Service Vehicle",

which read thus :-

"2(33) "private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle

constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of

such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or

reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;

2(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or

adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or

reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage ;"

15. Considering the effect of Section 2(g) of The Act of 1961 r/w

Section 2(35) of the Act of 1988, it has to be construed that the

petitioner is in the business of Public Motor Transport and hence, the

notification dated 20/07/2010 would be applicable to the petitioner.

16. It is clear from the facts of this case that the petitioners are

using their vehicles or hired vehicles for carriage of passengers, who

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

are employees of different client companies. The petitioner charges

these client companies for hiring its services and its vehicles. It is,

therefore, a business for profit that is being conducted by the

petitioner for hire or reward as is defined under the definition. I am,

therefore, of the view that the competent authority has rightly

considered that the petitioner operates its business in the public

transport arena and is therefore covered by the notification dated

20/07/2010 issued by the appropriate government for prescribing

the minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in public

motor transport.

17. Section 25 of the Act of 1948 provides for "Contracting Out",

which reads as under :-

"25. Contracting out.- Any contract or 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."

18. As such, in the event, any contract or agreement whether made

before or after the commencement of the Act, whereby an employee

relinquishes or reduces his right to a minimum rate of wages below

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

the rates prescribed by this Act, shall be null and void as it purports

to reduce the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act.

19. The issue, therefore, is as to whether the petitioner was making

the payments to the employees as was defined under the Act of 1948.

It is contended by Mr.Patil that when the total sum of payments is

higher than the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act, it is

inconsequential and insignificant as to whether the amount of basic

wages, special allowance / dearness allowance and the HRA under

the settlement is in consonance with those prescribed under the Act

of 1948.

20. He has relied upon the Airfreight Limited judgment (supra).

Paragraph Nos. 12, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24 read as under :-

"12. Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Municipal Council, Hatta v. Bhagat Singh and Ors., [1998] 2 SCC 443 for contending that where employees are getting better wages under the contract, the

provisions of the Minimum Wages Act would not be applicable.

In our view, the aforesaid decision is based upon the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act wherein the Court has observed that overtime under Section 14 is payable to those employees who are getting minimum rate of wage as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act and does not apply to those

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

getting better wages under other statutory rules. Payment of wages at the minimum rates is the lowest limit and to pay the

same is a statutory obligation. But, it does not prevent employer in paying `fair' or `living' wages. It would also depend upon other statutory or contractual obligations. In view of the

aforesaid discussion, in our view, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Notification dated 19th August, 1987 would not be applicable to the appellant-company

is without any substance.

16. Thereafter, various groups are mentioned. For illustration,

Group No. 3 Item No. 12 reads as under:

    Skilled worker for        +
      


    establishing Opto.        +  495-45    482-50     469-70            450-25
   



    17.      It further provides as under:-

"The rates shown in this Notification are inclusive of the rates

of dearness allowance as per the State's Average Consumer Price Index 1960+100 which is payable over and above 700 points. For every increase of points over and above 700 in the cost of Price Index number on the basis of State Average the

following dearness allowance is payable:-

    Classification of +                                               Rates of Cost of + 
    Employees                                                         Living Allowance
                       
    1.                        ----

    2.                        ----


    khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d










                                                                                        

                              Rs. 15 per day and per day             per point                 ps.




                                                                
                              & above Rs. 450 per month. 

18. The Dearness Allowance shall be calculated every year on

the 1st of April on the basis of the average of the indices preceding 12 months i.e. January to December. In addition the Dearness Allowance will be calculated on a sliding basis higher

or lower depending on the Cost of Living."

23. Section 3, inter-alia, provides that appropriate Government shall in the manner provided, fix the minimum rates of wages

payable to the employees employed in any employment specified in Part I or in Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to other party by the Notification under Section 27 and

said minimum wages are required to be reviewed at such

intervals as the appropriate Government may think fit, but it is required to be reviewed and revised within 5 years. Section 4 which provides that minimum wage may consist of basic rate of

wages and special allowance reads as under:-

"4. Minimum rate of wages (1) Any minimum rate of wages fixed or revised by the appropriate government in respect of schedule

employments under Section 3 may consist of-

(i) a basic rate of wages and a special allowance at a rate to be adjusted, at such intervals and in such manner as the appropriate government may direct, to accord as nearly as practicable with the variation in the cost of living index number applicable to such workers (hereinafter referred to as the "cost of

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

living allowance"); or

(ii) a basic rate of wages with or without the cost of living allowance, and the cash value of the concessions in respect of suppliers of essential commodities at concession rates, where so

authorised; or

(iii) an all-inclusive rate allowing for the basic rate, the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions, if any.

(2) The cost of living allowance and the cash value of the

concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rate shall be computed by the competent authority at

such intervals and in accordance with such directions as may be specified or given by the appropriate government."

24. As stated above minimum wage must provide not merely for

the bare subsistence of life but for the preservation of the

efficiency of the worker and so it must also provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities of himself and his family. While fixing the minimum wages, the

capacity of the employer to pay is treated as irrelevant and the Act contemplates that rates of minimum wage should be fixed in schedule industries with a dual object of providing sustenance and maintenance of the worker and his family and preserving

his efficiency as a worker. So it is required to take into consideration cost of bare subsistence of life and preservation of efficiency of the workers and for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities. This cost is likely to vary depending upon the cost prevailing in the market of various items. If there are inflationary conditions prevailing in the

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

country, then minimum wages fixed at a particular point of time would not serve the purpose. Therefore, Section 4 contemplates

that minimum wages fixed at a particular point of time should be revised from time to time. Section 4 postulates that minimum wages fixed or revised by the appropriate Government under

Section 3 may consist of basic rates of wages and special allowance at a rate to be adjusted at such intervals in such manner as the appropriate Government may direct to accord as

nearly as practicable with a variation in the cost of living index

number applicable to such workers; alternatively, it permits the fixation of basic rate of wages with or without cost of living

allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concessional rates where so authorised; or in the alternative, it permits an all inclusive rate

allowing for the basic rate, the cost of living allowance and the

cash value of concessions, if any. The purpose of Section 4 is to see that minimum wage can be linked with increase in cost of living so that increase in cost of living can be neutralised or all

inclusive rates of minimum wages can be fixed. But, from the aforesaid Sections 3 & 4, it is apparent that what is fixed is total remuneration which should be paid to the employees covered by the Schedule and not for payment of costs of different

components which are taken into consideration for fixation of minimum rates of wages. It is thus clear that the concept of minimum wages does take in the factor of prevailing cost of essential commodities whenever such minimum wage is to be fixed. The idea of fixing such wage in the light of cost of living at a particular juncture of time and of neutralising the rising prices

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

of essential commodities by linking up scales of minimum wages with the cost of living index is provided for in Section 4 but V.D.A.

is part and parcel of wages. Once rates of minimum wages are prescribed under the Act, whether as all inclusive under Section 4(l)(iii) or by combining basic plus dearness allowance under

Section 4(1)(i) are not amenable to split up. It is one pay package. Neither the scheme nor any provision of the Act provides that the rates of minimum wages are to be split up on the basis of the

cost of each necessities taken into consideration for fixing the

same. Hence, in cases where employer is paying total sum which is higher than minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act

including the cost of living index (VDA), he is not required to pay VDA separately. However, that higher wages should be calculated as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act. Section 2(h)

specifically provides that value of the following items are not

required to be computed for finding out whether employer pays minimum wages as prescribed under the Act:-

(i) the value of any house, accommodation, supply of light,

water, medical care, or any other amenity or any service excluded by general or special order of the appropriate Government.

(ii) any pension fund or provident fund or under any scheme of social insurance

(iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession

(iv) any sum paid to any person employed to defray special expenses curtailed on him by the nature of his employment or

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

(v) any gratuities payable on discharge."

21. It is, therefore, apparent that while calculating the minimum

rates of wages, the total of the basic and dearness allowance has to

be in consonance with the said component being paid by the

employer.

22.

In the Sunrise Industries judgment (supra), the Karnataka

High Court considered the submissions of the parties in paragraph

No.9, 10, 13, 14, which read as under :-

"9. A Charter of Demand was placed by the Association before management under which several demands were raised and

during the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Bangalore, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement on 24.7.2000, under which there was revision of wages agreed to be paid by the management to workmen by

increasing the wages by Rs. 6/-, 7/- and 8/- under three categories. The said settlement was agreed to be in force for a period of one year from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001. One of the

demands raised by the workmen was with regard to payment of Dearness Allowance. This issue remained unsettled in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Airfreight India Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 1999(2) LJ 705 : (AIR 1999 SC 2459). In the settlement arrived at, it was agreed between the management

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

and the workmen on the issue of DA as follows : "The workmen agree that the dispute regarding wages and

increment is settled. However, the issue of payment of Dearness Allowances remains unsettled and open for conciliation/adjudication etc., in view of the different perception

by the management and workmen, in view of the latest supreme court decision the case of Airfreight India. Hence, the Industrial dispute pertaining to Dearness Allowance subsists

till the matter is finally decided.

The Association and the workmen hereby agree that they shall

not raise any demand on the Management during the period of operation of this settlement. All the demands of the workmen raised in their letter dated 9.3.2000, except Dearness

Allowance are deemed to have been settled/withdrawn by virtue of the settlement.

On account of non payment of DA to the workmen with effect from 1.4.2000 as per the DA fixed by the Government under the

Minimum Wages Notification applicable to the Engineering Industry, the workmen raised a dispute and appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication by the

Industrial Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for management has contended that Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore has traveled beyond the scope of reference and it should not have extended the scope of reference by proceeding to decide as to whether fair wages was

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

being paid by the management and thereby enlarging the scope of reference. The law on this aspect is settled by catena of

judgments and in the case of Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Perfect Pottery Company Ltd., and another reported in

1979(1) LLN 336 : (AIR 1979 SC 1356) it has been held that Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go beyond the terms of reference and to enquire into the question which is not involved

in a reference. If the Tribunal travels beyond the terms of the reference, the award is nullity and would not confer any right

upon the party. There cannot be any dispute with regard to this proposition of law. As to whether factually the Industrial

Tribunal in the instant case has traveled beyond the scope of reference or not, is required to be examined by referring to the point of dispute referred to by the appropriate government to the

industrial Tribunal for its adjudication and its finding thereon.

The reference dated 2.2.2001 made by the appropriate Government reads as under :

(Vernacular matter omitted........Ed.)

13. In order to consider the arguments advanced by the learned advocates, it would be of benefit to give the following illustrations which would reflect some amount of light on the

contentions, in the back drop of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Airfreight's case.

Illustration No. 1:

In case the minimum wage is Rs. 75/- and VDA fixed under the said notification (issued under the Minimum Wages Act) is Rs.

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

25/- the total component of wages would be Rs. 100/-. If a workmen say for example is paid Minimum wages @ Rs. 75/-

as fixed under notification but VDA @ Rs. 15/- is only paid, the total component would be Rs. 90/- and in such circumstances workmen can claim the minimum VDA fixed under the

notification which is Rs. 25/- to make the total component at Rs. 100/- since there is a shortfall in the component of VDA. In such circumstances, the workmen can contend that VDA paid to

him is less and seek for payment of the balance amount of Rs.

10/- in accordance with the notification.

Illustration No. 2:

In case the minimum wage is Rs. 75/- and VDA is fixed under the said notification (issued under the Minimum Wages Act) is

Rs. 25/- the total component would be Rs. 100/-. If a workmen say for example is paid Minimum wages @ Rs. 90/- as fixed

under notification (much more than the amount fixed under the notification) and VDA @ Rs. 15/- is paid, the total component

would be Rs. 105/- and as such, the workmen would be receiving more than Minimum Wages than fixed under the notification namely he would be receiving the Minimum Wages @ Rs. 105/- as against Rs. 100)/- fixed under the notification.

In such circumstances, the workmen cannot contend that VDA component fixed under the Minimum Wages Notification being Rs. 25/-the management is required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10/-. In such circumstances, if the plea of the workmen is accepted, the total component would become Rs. 125/- which would be Rs. 25/-more than the Minimum wages fixed under

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

the notification.

14. It is this anomaly which is explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Airfreight's case and it has been held that when employer pays minimum wages more than fixed under

Notification such employer need not pay Dearness Allowance component separately since it is inbuilt in the component of Minimum Wages itself, to this background the facts on hand are

required to be examined."

23. It was, therefore, concluded that if the total of the basic and

dearness allowance paid by the employer under a settlement is higher

than the basic and dearness allowance prescribed by the Act of 1948,

there would be no anomaly as the VDA is then not required to be

paid separately.

24. In the Krishna Flour Mills case (supra), the Division Bench of

the Karnataka High Court has held in paragraph Nos.14, 15, 16 and

17 as under :-

" 14. The appellants submit that what they are paying is a gross

pay packet to the worker which exceeds from what is fixed by the Government as minimum wages both basic and other allowances put together. It is further argued that, though they have not paid separately "cost of living allowance", since the total emolument paid to the worker is much more than what

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

they are entitled to receive in terms of minimum wages notified, they have not violated any provision of the Act.

15. We are afraid, this contention, though appears to be attractive, cannot fulfill the mandatory requirements of law.

(Emphasis supplied).

Section 4 of the Act states that minimum rate of wages to be

fixed by the Government in respect of the scheduled

employment may consist of (1) basic rate of wages and (2) special allowances at a rate to be adjusted at such intervals and in such a manner as the Government may direct as nearly

as practicable with a variation in the cost of living index number applicable to such worker which is termed as cost of living allowance or DA in common parlance. Hence, it is clear

that the minimum wages consists of 2 parts, i.e., (1) basic rate

of wages and (2) special allowance like cost of living allowance and other allowances such as house rent allowance, travelling allowance, etc. Under Section 5 of the Act a procedure has been

laid for fixing and revising minimum wages. Under Section 5(2) of the Act the appropriate Government, after considering the advice of the committee appointed under clause (a) of sub-

section (1) or all representations received by it shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix the rate of wages in respect of each scheduled employment and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of 3 months from the date of its issue. In the present case, by a notification dated 14-2-1986 the State Government

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

has fixed the minimum rate of wages. In the notification published by the State, the State Government has fixed the

minimum rate of wages payable to the employee and further it is stated that in addition to the basic wages mentioned in the schedule the employees shall be paid the "cost of living

allowances" at the rate prescribed following thereof. It is also to be noted that sub-clause (3) of clause (ii) of the notification states that wherever the prevailing rate of wages is higher, the

higher rate of wages shall be continued to be paid.

16. Thus, it is clear that under the notification the State has

fixed 2 separate categories of minimum rates of wages to be paid to the employees -- one basic and the other 'other allowance' i.e., DA. It is to be noted that the appellants have not

challenged the validity of these notifications and as such the

notifications have been accepted by them. As such, the mandatory requirement of the Act is that the appellants must pay under the two different categories. The argument of the

appellants that they are paying to the employees a gross pay packet which incidentally is higher than the minimum rate of wages fixed by the State and, hence, they are not liable to pay

the cost of living allowance may not be a sound proposition. Merely because the appellants are able to pay higher rate of wages it does not absolve them from paying separately the "cost of living allowances". As sub-clause (3) of clause (ii) of the notification clearly indicates, even if the appellants are paying higher rate of wages, they shall continue to pay. In other words,

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

they have to continue to pay the "wages" now being paid and in addition to that the minimum rate of "cost of living allowance" is

to be paid by them separately as per the notification. (Emphasis supplied)

17. In our opinion, the ratio in the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the

present case. In the Municipal Borough's case, supra, the

question was, when the wages actually paid exceed the minimum fixed inclusive of overtime payable, whether the employee is entitled for the same and this Court held that

though the employee has a statutory right to receive wages at the rate not lower than the notified minimum rate, no employee, if it is found that wages paid by the employer are more than

what the employee would have got on the basis of the minimum

rate of wages for the normal working days plus the wages for the overtime work. It is to be noted that the case was for consideration of payment of overtime work undertaken by the

employee. In the present case, it is cost of living allowance which is to be considered. The cost of living allowances is a variable factor. The cost of living goes on changing. It depends

on rise or change in the day-to-day living index and inflation. As such, as the cost of living allowance is a variable factor, it cannot be said that the pay packet fixed once for all by the employer would be inclusive of the living wages. Hence, the decision referred to above by the learned Counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the present case."

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

25. On the issue of compensation, the Kerala High Court in the

case of Ponnambalan (supra) has held in paragraph Nos.5 and 5A as

under :-

"5. Regarding the direction for payment of compensation of Rs.

3,235/- to the employee, I do not find any infirmity in the order

of the Authority. The only point stressed before me by learned counsel for the employer is that in as much as he has expressed

his willingness to pay minimum wages as per Ext.P3 counter statement, the Authority ought not have passed any order

directing the employer to pay any compensation at all to the employee. I do not find any merit in this contention. Liability for payment of compensation is attracted whenever wages paid by

the employer is found to be less than the minimum rates of

wages in which case the authority is given jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders directing compensation to the employee not exceeding 10 times the amount of such excess. So, the liability

for payment of compensation is not relatable to the factum of the consent on the part of the employer. The fact that the employer has consented to pay the minimum rates of wages as per Ext.P3 statement will not absolve him from the liability to pay

compensation to the employee. The liability of the employer to pay minimum wages to the employee does not depend upon the employer's consent. Viewed in this light, I do not find any merit in the contention. Simply because he was willing to pay minimum wages as per Ext.P3 statement, it does not follow that the employee is not entitled to receive any compensation as

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

directed by the Authority.

5 A. Next, it was contended by learned counsel for the employer that even assuming that he can be made liable to pay compensation, such compensation shall in no case exceed the

amount claimed by the employee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the amount which was claimed by the employee is only Rs. 500/- as can be seen from Ext. P1. The question to be

considered is whether the Authority has jurisdiction to award

compensation which is in excess of the amount claimed by the employee, but within the limit prescribed by the Act. In

considering this question, one has to bear in mind that we are construing a benevolent social security legislation which is intended to secure social justice and being so, must receive a

liberal interpretation consistent with the interpretation applicable

to benevolent legislation. An employee cannot be denied the benefit contemplated under the legislation simply for the reason that in his application he has shown the amount much below

what he is entitled to under the Act. In other words, the employee cannot be pinned down to his application nor he can be cribbed, cabined or confined within the four walls of the application. In the matter of compensation even in cases where

the claim made by the employee is less than the amount he is entitled to under the Act, it is open for the Authority under the Act to step in and to award an amount which is in excess of the amount so claimed by the employee, but within the limit prescribed under the Act. Viewed in this light, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the direction issued

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

by the Authority in Ext. P6 directing the employer to pay to the employee a sum of Rs. 3,235/- as compensation is perfectly

justified and does not call for interference in the instant writ petition. (See in this connection K.P. Kurian v. Managing Partner, Hindustan Shipping Company 1974 KLT 659 and Mohammed

Koya v. Balan 1987 (1) KLT 18 DB."

26. In the case in hand, the basic pay + special allowance

prescribed by the Act of 1948, has been mentioned in the third

coloumn (A) in Exhibit 1 to the impugned order. In comparison

thereto, the basic pay actually paid by the petitioner is set out in

coloumn 4(B) and the special allowance as paid by the petitioner is

set out in coloumn 5(C). The total of both these components (B +C)

is almost half of the amount of minimum wages prescribed by the

Act. The personal pay paid by the petitioner is set out in coloumn

6(D). Even by the addition of this amount to the basic and special

allowance paid by the petitioner, leaves a difference of more than

Rs.2,000/- on an average payable to the employees. In some cases,

the difference is even upto Rs.4,000/-. The competent authority

has, therefore, rightly concluded that the difference in the minimum

wages was required to be paid by the petitioner to the employees.

27. I find from the impugned judgment that the competent

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

authority has rightly excluded the washing allowance, child

education allowance and hostel allowance as well as bonus while

considering the pay package made available by the petitioner under

its settlement. The said conclusion of the competent authority is in

tune with the exclusion clause under section 2(h) of the Act of 1948,

which defines the wages payable to the employees.

28.

The competent authority, in the light of the judgment of the

Apex Court in Airfreight limited (supra) and the definition of wages,

has rightly assessed that the basic wages, special allowance and the

personal pay paid by the petitioner needs to be computed while

calculating the difference in the minimum wages applicable to the

Zone II employees. The compensation imposed by it as penalty is also

justified in view of the ratio laid down in Poonambalan case (supra).

29. The petitioner has canvassed that the pending reference (IT)

No.5/2013 pertaining to the charter of demands put forth by the

Union would preclude the Union from claiming difference in

minimum wages from the competent authority under the Act of 1948.

30. The petitioner has taken me through demand No.5 set out in

the charter of demands January 2013. The said demand is by way

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

of a claim made by the Union seeking fixation of the basic wages at

Rs.5,700/- per month. It is, therefore, contended that when the

demand for rise in basic wages is pending before the Industrial

Tribunal, the impugned claim before the competent authority under

the Act of 1948 was unsustainable.

31. I am not impressed by the submissions of the learned Advocate

for the petitioner for the reason that the claim before the competent

authority decided by the impugned judgment, is in relation to the

difference of pay for July 2013 to 31/10/2013 (4 months) based on

the existing minimum wages prescribed by the concerned notification

dated 20/07/2010 under the Act of 1948.

32. In the charter of demands, the Union is at liberty to put forth

any demand over and above the prescription of Law since such

demands are to be justified before the Tribunal by considering the

"region cum industry" and "comparable industries" formula. The

Tribunal is then to decide whether the claim deserves to be accepted

or not. It is not an anathema to demand through a charter of

demands, a wage rise or a hike in minimum wages. Such demands

are not linked with the prescription under the Act of 1948 since the

amount prescribed by the Act is a mandate of Law and requires no

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

negotiation. Section 25 of the Act of 1948 prohibits fixation of

minimum rates of wages below the prescribed rate under the Act. I,

therefore, conclude that the pendency of Reference (IT) No.5/2013

cannot be an embargo for the tenability of the claim before the

competent authority under the Act of 1948 as both are not inter-

linked.

33.

The competent authority has calculated the difference / short

fall and the compensation amount payable to the claimant workers

by considering that they fall under category skilled 'A', in Exhibit 1

annexed to the impugned order dated 28/01/2015. It is conceded by

the respondent Union that the claimants fall in skilled 'B' category in

Zone II. The petitioner shall, therefore, recalculate the amounts by

deducting the difference between skilled 'A' and skilled 'B" category.

Similarly, the petitioner shall reduce the compensation amount

proportionately between skilled 'A' and skilled 'B'. After recalculating

these amounts in the light of Exh.1, the petitioners shall pay the said

amounts to the claimant workers.

34. In the light of the above, the petitioner shall prepare its chart of

recalculations on the lines of Exh.1 considering the difference as

noted above and supply the said chart to the respondent No.2 Union

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d

within 2 (two) weeks from today. It shall pay the amounts over and

above the deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of 6 (six) weeks

thereafter.

35. Needless to state, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- deposited in

this Court by the petitioner vide DD No.020711 dated 24/06/2015,

shall be payable to the claimant workers, who shall withdraw their

shares based on the recalculations. They shall produce tangible

evidence / proof of identity to the satisfaction of the Registrar,

Judicial while withdrawing the said amounts.

36. As such, this petition is partly allowed by modifying the

impugned order dated 28/01/2015 to the extent of the recalculations

in the difference of minimum wages and compensation amount in the

statement Exhibit 1.

37. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/Aug. 2015/5126-15-d