Delhi Administration vs Prem Ballabh & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2643 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                         W.P.(C) 20445/2005
+                                  Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2012

#      DELHI ADMINISTRATION                 ....Petitioner
!                    Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate

                                 Versus
$      PREM BALLABH & ORS.                           ...Respondents
                   Through:            Mr. Varun Prasad, Advocate

       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN


                                 JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)

By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 1st November, 2004 passed by the learned labour Court on a petition filed by the workmen concerned under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act wherein they claimed that they were entitled to receive minimum wages for the work being taken from them by their employer and that application has been allowed.

2. The undisputed position is that workmen concerned had been working at the Training-cum-Production Centre (T.C.P.C.) at Punjabi Bagh under a Scheme floated by the Delhi Government to train physically handicapped persons for the job of stitching and tailoring. As per the Scheme, the workmen were to be trained for a period of one year during which period they were to get only a fixed stipend.

Thereafter, the trainees were to be engaged in production work for a maximum period of two years. However, it is not in dispute that after the expiry of period of two years after training of one year, the workmen involved in the present case were never asked to leave and they had been getting the work on piece rate basis. The Government decided to close down the T.C.P.C. at Punjabi Bagh and on its closure, the respondent-workmen became surplus and their services came to be terminated on 1st March, 2004. Feeling aggrieved, they filed a complaint under Section 33A of Industrial Disputes Act since at that time an industrial dispute regarding some demands of workmen was pending before industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of that complaint case a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workmen whereby the management had agreed to adjust the workmen in its premises at Ramesh Nagar where another T.C.P.C. by the name of 'Sheltered Workshop' for physically handicapped was already being run, though under a different Scheme.

3. The petitioners' case is that as per the settlement arrived at during the pendency of the complaint case the workmen had agreed to get their wages on piece rate basis which they were earlier getting at the T.C.P.C. at Punjabi Bagh before its closure and therefore, they could not approach the labour Court thereafter under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for claiming minimum wages, which even as per the Scheme under which they had been working at the T.C.P.C. they were not entitled to get.

4. The learned labour Court has allowed the petition under Section

33C(2) vide impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner as put forth by its counsel is that even though the claim of the workmen to get minimum wages was refuted on many grounds as taken in management's written statement but the learned labour Court without even framing issues and putting the case to trial and giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence accepted the claim of the workmen.

5. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, reference was made on behalf of the respondents-workmen to a judgment of this Court in "Delhi Administration Vs. Presiding Officer and Others", 2004 LIC 622 in which the workers employed at the Sheltered Workshop being run by the Directorate of Social Welfare were granted the relief of payment of minimum wages. In that matter, the Delhi Government had resisted the claim of the workmen on the ground that these kind of Centres did not fall in the category of 'industry' and there was no relationship of employer-employee between the parties and consequently, the provisions of Minimum Wages Act were also not applicable. Same pleas were raised by the petitioners in the present case also. This Court had, however, rejected those defences raised by the Delhi Government. It was contended by the learned counsel for the workmen that this judgment squarely applies to the case of the workmen involved in the present litigation also.

6. I have gone through the above referred judgment of this Court and find that there is no distinguishing feature whatsoever in its

applicability to the present case. Apart from the fact that this judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, I am also of the view that even otherwise the petitioners cannot be permitted to take a stand that though it would take work from the workmen for stitching and tailoring but it would not pay to them even the minimum wages prescribed from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that status of the workmen involved still continues to be that of trainees. As noticed already, they are no more getting stipend as trainees and in fact are getting wages on piece rate basis.

7. As far as the grievance of the petitioner that the labour Court could not have passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity to it to establish its defence is concerned, I am of the view that in view of the facts and circumstances there was no illegality committed by the learned labour Court in straightway accepting the claim of the workmen which was only for payments of minimum wages to them and all other legal objections regarding the T.C.P.C. being an industry and there being no employer-employee relationship having already been rejected by this Court in the above referred judgment nothing remained to be established by the petitioner- management and it only appears to be an attempt on its part to delay the legitimate payment to poor and physically handicapped persons which is not expected from the Government at least. Instead of very fairly conceding to the demand of these physically handicapped persons, the Government had chosen to have litigation by forcing the workmen to go to the labour Court.

8. This writ petition, in my view, is totally misconceived and frivolous one and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs of ` 35,000 which shall be shared in equal shares by each one of the workmen involved in this case for unnecessarily having been dragged into this litigation. The amount of wages which the petitioner had deposited with this Court in compliance of the order dated 24th October, 2005 shall now be released to each of the concerned workmen as per the calculations done by the labour Court. If the money has been invested with the bank the interest shall also be paid to the workmen in accordance with their shares.

P.K. BHASIN, J

APRIL 23, 2012/pg