Bombay High Court
Bilt Tree Tech Ltd. And 4 Others vs Vidarbha Prahar Kamgar ... on 2 March, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp4053.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4053 OF 2014
1. Bilt Tree Tech Ltd.,
A Company registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956, having
its Registered Office at Thapar House,
124, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Yogesh Agrawal,
Aged 58 years, Managing Director,
Bilt Tree Tech Ltd., R/o. 1, India Place,
Mohoril, Gudgaon Road, Hariyana.
3. Dr. Suchita Bhandari,
Aged 52 years, Head, Business Unit,
Bilt Tree Tech Ltd., R/o. 1, India Place,
Mohorli, Gudgaon Road, Hariyana.
4. Amit Datta,
Aged 48 years, Deputy General Manager
(Producation), Bilt Tree Tech Ltd.,
C/o. BILT Graphic Paper Products Limited,
Old Colony Premises, Near BILT Hospital,
Ballarpur, District : Chandrapur.
5. Piyush Tiwari,
Aged 56 years, In-charge Human Resources,
Bilt Tree Tech Ltd., C/o. BILT Graphic Paper
Products Limited, Old Colony Premises,
Near BILT Hospital, Ballarpur, District :
Chandrapur.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Vidarbha Prahar Kamgar Sanghatna,
having its office at 16, Arvind Nagar,
Mul Road, Chandrapur, through its
president Smt. Harshal Kumar
Chiplunkar.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:34:36 :::
Judgment 2 wp4053.14.odt
2. Assistant Labour Commissioner &
Competent Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act for Chandrapur
District, New Administrative Building,
Chandrapur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri Sunil Manohar, Sr. Advocate a/b. Shri A.A.Naik, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A.P.Raghute, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri H.D.Dubey, A.G.P. for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MARCH 02, 2017.
CAW NO. 2461/2016.
The interim order passed by this Court on 5th December, 2015
was challenged in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1233 of
2016 which is disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22nd January,
2016. While disposing the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, liberty was
granted to the petitioner to move this Court for early hearing of the writ
petition. The petitioners have filed Civil Application No.2461 of 2016
praying for early hearing which is listed.
Considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the order disposing petition for special leave to appeal, the writ
petition is taken up for final hearing.
Civil Application No. 2461 of 2016 stands disposed accordingly.
Judgment 3 wp4053.14.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by which the application filed by the respondent
No.1 is partly allowed and the petitioners are directed to pay difference of
wages to 92 workers whose names are shown in the list annexed to the order.
3. The dispute is whether the employment of the 92 workers in
respect of whom directions are given by the impugned order will fall under
entry 49 of Part-I of the Schedule or under Entry-1 of Part-II of Schedule of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the petitioners, the
employment of those 92 workers will fall under Entry No.1 of Part-II of the
Schedule. According to the respondent No.1, the employment of those 92
workers will fall under Entry 49 of Part-I of the Schedule.
4. The learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted
that the impugned order is passed relying on the communication sent by the
Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai on 30th July, 2013, approving the view of
Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner had
sent a communication dated 1st February, 2013 to the Additional Labour
Judgment 4 wp4053.14.odt
Commissioner stating that as per his view, before taking any action against
the establishment (present petitioner No.1), the opinion of Law and Judiciary
Department be taken. According to the petitioners, they are given
information under the Right to Information Act that Law and Judiciary
Department has not given any opinion in the matter.
The learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has relied on the
communication issued by the Desk Officer on 18th July, 2013 to the Labour
Commissioner stating that the workers employed in the petitioner No.1
industry are entitled for minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 as the employment falls under the head Forest and /or Forestry.
5. Be that as it may, the above communication dated 18th July,
2013 issued by the Desk Officer does not show that after considering the rival
claims and all the relevant aspects, a decision is taken that the employment
of the concerned workers will fall under Item 1 of Part-II of the Schedule and
not under Item 49 of Part-I of the Schedule. The communications sent by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Labour Commissioner also nowhere
deal with the dispute raised by the petitioners. The learned advocate for the
respondent No.1 has not been able to points out that any authority has
adverted to the point raised by the petitioners.
Judgment 5 wp4053.14.odt
Thus, the impugned order imposing the liability of paying
minimum wages to the workers considering that the employment of the
concerned workers will fall under Entry No.49 of Part-I of the Schedule is
without considering the objection raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the
impugned order is unsustainable and has to be set aside and the matter has
to be remanded to the authority for further consideration.
6. Hence, the following order:
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Chandrapur and competent Authority under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 for fresh decision.
iii) The petitioners or their representatives and the representative of
the respondent No.1 shall appear before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Chandrapur on 10th April, 2017 at 11.00 a.m.
and abide by further orders/ instructions in the matter.
iv) The parties will be at liberty to amend the pleadings and
produce additional material on record, if so advised.
v) The Assistant Labour Commissioner shall consider the
objections raised on behalf of the petitioners, specially on the
point whether the employment of the concerned workers will
fall under Entry 1 of Part-II or Entry 49 of Part-I of the Schedule
to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Judgment 6 wp4053.14.odt
vi) The advocates for the parties have submitted that since as per
Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Assistant
Labour Commissioner is competent to decide the issue/ point
raised by the petitioners, he can decide it without awaiting any
decision/ clarification from the State Government.
vii) The Assistant Labour Commissioner shall take decision on the
application of the respondent No.1, according to law, within
four months.
viii) If the petitioners file an undertaking stating that if the Assistant
Labour Commissioner passes the order directing the petitioners
to pay the amount towards difference of wages to the workers it
shall be deposited before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
within one month from the date of passing of the order, the
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners before
this Court along with interest on it, if any, be given to the
petitioner No.1.
The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
