Young Women Christian ... vs Secretary,Labour ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3072 Bom

                                                    1                                 Judg. wp 2866.00.odt 

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                         Writ Petition No.2866 of 2000

              Young Women Christian Association, Nagpur,
              vide Registration No.1723/94, 
              office at behind Museum, Civil Lines, Nagpur, 
              through its Secretary. 
                                                                                                 .... Petitioner.
                                                               -Versus-

              1]        Secretary, Labour Department, 
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

              2]        Government Labour Officer under
                        Bombay Shops and Establishment Act of 1948 
                        and the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, 
                        Office at Commissioner of Labour, 
                        Bhosla Chamber, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

              3]        A. Madivala,
                        Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, 
                        Bhosla Chamber, Civil Line, Nagpur.

              4]      R.R. Naidu, Secretary, 
                      Hammer Workers Union, Nagpur.               .... Respondents.
              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri  P.K. Sathianathan, Advocate for petitioner.
              Shri  N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Coram : R. K. Deshpande & 
                             Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

               Dated  : 12    June, 2017
                              th
                                           





                                                     2                                 Judg. wp 2866.00.odt 

              ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)

The Appropriate Government has fixed the minimum rates or

the wages payable to the employees in an employment specified in

Part I and Part II of the Schedule and in an employment added to

either Part by Notification under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages

Act, 1948. The Schedule prepared under Sections 2(g) and 27 of the

said Act contains entry no.13 in Part I which is reproduced below :-

"[13. Employment in any residential hotel, restaurant or eating houses as defined in the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.]"

2] By the orders impugned in this petition, the petitioner which is

a charitable Trust and a society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 has been classified under the aforesaid

provisions for the purposes of liability of minimum wages to be paid

to the employees working in the canteen of the residential hostel run

by the petitioner.

3] The contention of Shri Sathianathan, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be classified

as commercial establishment within the meaning of Section 2(4) of

the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and therefore the

provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are also not applicable.

                                                     3                                 Judg. wp 2866.00.odt 

              4]       We have gone through the orders impugned in this petition. 

We do not find any adjudication as to how the provisions of the

Bombay Shops and Establishments Act are applicable to the

petitioner. It is also not known as to how the canteen run by the

petitioner has been classified for the purposes of applicability of the

Minimum Wages Act. In the absence of any such finding on material

aspects, the respondents have committed an error in passing an order

of recovery against the petitioner of the dues of minimum wages

which according to them were payable by the petitioner to the

employees. In the absence of any such adjudication of a finding, it

is not possible for us to sustain the impugned order. The same will

have to be set aside with an order of remand of the matter back to the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 for the decision afresh.

5] In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The orders dated

06-04-2000 passed by the respondent no.3 are hereby quashed and

set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 to

decide the question of applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to

the establishment of the petitioner afresh. The petitioner to appear

before the respondent no.3 on 03-07-2017. The respondent no.3

shall issue show cause notice to the petitioner on the question of

applicability of recovery under the Minimum Wages Act. After

receipt of explanation and hearing the petitioner on the question, a

4 Judg. wp 2866.00.odt

decision afresh shall be taken within a period of 8 months from the

date of first appearance of the petitioner before the respondent no.3

which shall be communicated to the petitioner.

6] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.

                                 JUDGE                                             JUDGE




              Deshmukh