Bombay High Court
Central Tanzeen Committee, ... vs Mohammad Ismail S/O. Mohd. ... on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp4345.2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4345/2015
Central Tanzeem Committee,
Mohammad Ali Sarai, Mominpura,
Nagpur, Through its President/Secretary ... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Mohammad Ismail S/o Mohd. Ibrahim,
Aged about 52 years, (Died during
pendency, hence L.Rs.)
1-a] Smt. Haleemabee Wd/o Mohd. Ismail,
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Housewife
1-b] Mohd. Ejaj S/o Mohd. Ismail,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Labour,
1-c] Ku. Shabutta Parveen D/o Mohd. Ismail,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Nil.
All R/o Mahendra Nagar, Plot No. 399,
Kamptee Road, Nagpur ... RESPONDENTS
===================================
Shri F.G. Isaac, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri A.J. Pathak, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1-a to 1-c
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th
DATED :- 17 JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:05:49 :::
Judgment 2 wp4345.2015.odt
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The respondent-employee had filed an application
under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking
directions against the petitioner-employer for paying the amount
of Rs. 5,53,591/- towards difference of wages, after calculating his
wages according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period
from 01/01/2001 till 27/12/2008, towards weekly day off wages,
towards Annual and National festival leave wages and towards
overtime wages. The claim of the employee was opposed by the
employer on various grounds, one of the ground being that the
employment of the employee was not a scheduled employment
and was not covered by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. By the
impugned order, the Labour Court has allowed the application
filed by the employee. Being aggrieved by this order, the employer
has filed this petition.
3] The learned advocate for the petitioner-employer has
submitted that though specific ground was raised before the
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:05:49 :::
Judgment 3 wp4345.2015.odt
Labour Court that the employment of the employee was not a
scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, the Labour
Court has not adverted to the objection raised by the employer
and has allowed the application filed by the employee without
considering that the employee cannot claim the difference of
wages considering the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act.
Relying on the judgment given in the case of Lingegowd Detective
and Security Chamber (P) Ltd. vs Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. & Ors.
reported in 2006 II CLR at page 392, it is submitted that under the
scheme of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 only those employees
are entitled to claim the minimum wages who are
engaged/employed for the employments specified in Part-I and
Part-II of the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act,1948 and as the
employee has failed to point out that his employment is covered
by Part-I and Part-II of the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act,
the Labour Court could not have granted the claim as granted.
4] Be that as it may, after going through the impugned
order, I find that the Labour Court has recorded that the employer
had raised the objection about the applicability of the Minimum
Wages Act, however, has not dealt with it. The failure on the part
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2018 01:05:49 :::
Judgment 4 wp4345.2015.odt
of the Labour Court to deal with the objection about the
applicability of the Minimum Wages Act has resulted in erroneous
exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court, and therefore the
impugned order is vitiated.
Hence, the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1] The impugned order is set aside.
2] The matter is remanded to the First Labour
Court, Nagpur for deciding the Application I.D.A.
No. 73/2009 afresh.
3] The petitioner and the respondents shall
appear before the First Labour Court, Nagpur on
12/03/2018 at 11:00 a.m. and abide by further
orders/instructions in the matter.
4] As the matter is of 2009, the Labour Court
Judgment 5 wp4345.2015.odt
shall dispose it within three months.
The parties are at liberty to produce the additional
evidence on record if so advised.
The amount deposited by the petitioner with the
Registry of this Court be given to the petitioner alongwith the
interest on it, if any.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
