Gauhati High Court
The Director Central Plantation Crops ... vs Jiten Das And 15 Ors on 29 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010027392023
2025:GAU-AS:9682-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/88/2024
1: THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
AND ANR. KERALA, PIN-671124
2: THE SCIENTIST - IN - CHARGE CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS
RESEARCH INSTITUTE RESEARCH CENTRE KAHIKUCHI GHY-17
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM
VERSUS
1: JITEN DAS AND 15 ORS.
VILL. MATIA AZARA, P.O. AZARA,
DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781017, CASE NO. GIR 96/2010
2:TAPAN BAISHYA
VILL. AGCHIA P.O. PALASHBARI DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 97/2010
3:BISHNU MEDHI
VILL. AZARA AZAPARA P.O. AZARA
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 98/2010
4:BRAJEN SHARMA
VILL. MAJIR GAON P.O. PALASHBARI
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 99/2010
5:DIGANTA MEDHI
VILL. MEDHIPARA AZARA P.O. AZARA
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 100/2010
6:RANJIT CH. DAS
VILL. MIRZAPUR P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 101/2010
7:NAGENDRA MEDHI
Page No.# 2/6
VILL. OZAPARA P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 102/2010
8:BIJAY CH. DAS
VILL. MIRZAPUR P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 103/2010
9:TUKU BAISHYA
VILL. KALITA PARA P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 104/2010
10:FARID ALI
VILL. LOWER MIRZAPUR P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 105/2010
11:BIPUL BORUAH
VILL. OZAPARA P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 106/2010
12:SUSHIL KALITA
VILL. KALITAPARA P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 107/2010
13:NIZAM ALI
VILL. BARBARI P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 108/2010
14:KAN DAS
VILL. KAHIKUCHI P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 109/2010
15.1:SHAKUNTALA DAS
VILL. KEOTPARA VILL. AZARA OZAPAR P.O. AZARA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781017 CASE NO.G/R 110/2010
15.2:MASTER RAMEN DAS
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS S/O- SONABAR DAS
VILL- KEOTPARA VILL- AZARA ZAPARA KEOTPARA
P.O- AZARA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781017
16:THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) RAM KRISHNA
MISSION ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. R.B. Bora, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sarma, Advocate for private respondents.
Page No.# 3/6
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
29.07.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
1. Heard Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. M.K.
Sarma, learned Advocate for all the private respondents.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment & order dated
05.01.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.613/2013, whereby
the prayer made on behalf of the appellants not to treat the private respondents
as persons entitled for Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as
"Act of 1948"), was rejected.
3. It appears from the records that the private respondents were engaged
as Skilled Labourers by the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kerala
having its Research Centre at Kahikuchi, Guwahati. The private respondents
were located at the Research Centre at Kahikuchi.
4. A proceeding was initiated by the private respondents before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (RLCC), Guwahati seeking minimum
wages which was allowed. Hitherto, the respondents were being paid only
Rs.1500/- per month as stipend.
5. By the order of the RLCC, the appellants herein were directed to
deposit an amount of Rs.18,49,335.78 + Rs.36,98,671.56 + Rs.55,48,007.34 in
the form of a Demand Draft in favour of the Authority under the Act of 1948 for
payment of wages to the private respondents.
Page No.# 4/6
6. This was challenged by the appellants before this Court by way of
WP(C) No.613/2013 stating that the appellant herein is a Research Centre and
the respondents, who have been engaged on a stipend of Rs.1500/- per month,
do not fall in the category of people under employment under either Part-I or
Part-II of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1948. Thus, it was contended
that without the employment of the respondents to be either under Part-I or
Part-II of the Schedule, both the RLCC, Guwahati and the learned Single Judge
erred in holding that the respondents are entitled to the minimum wages under
the Act of 1948.
7. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellants, it would only
be apt to extract Part-II of the Schedule, referred to above, which reads as
here-under:-
"Employment in agriculture, that is to say, in any form of farming, including
the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairy farming, the production,
cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural
commodity, the raising of live-stock, bees or poultry, and any practice
performed by a farmer on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with farm
operations (including any forestry or timbering operations and the
preparation for market and delivery to storage or to market or to carriage for
transportation to market of farm produce)."
8. The contention of the appellants herein is that unless the produce is
taken to the market for storage or for delivery, any other work on the farm
would not fall in the category of employment in agriculture.
9. This contention was repelled by the learned Single Judge, and rightly
so, on the ground of the absurdity creeping in it if in the last part of Part-II, the
word "and" would be treated as conjunctive.
Page No.# 5/6
10. A plain reading of Part-II of the Schedule to the Act of 1948 would
indicate that all employment including farming, cultivation, tillage, dairy farming
of agricultural or horticultural commodity, raising of live-stock, poultry, etc.,
would form part of Part-II of the Schedule. If the incidental or conjunctive farm
operations like forestry or timbering operations and the preparation for market
and delivery to storage or to market or to carriage for transportation to market
of farm produce are required, that shall also form part of the Schedule.
11. Thus, the word "and" does not control the other definition of
employment in agriculture and it would not be necessary at all to test whether a
person falls in Part-II of the Schedule by testing whether the produce is taken to
the market for storage or delivery.
12. Even on this count, the contention of the respondents is that as
employees of the Research Centre, the respondents grow crops, which obviously
is done after working in the fields and the produce is then taken to the market.
Even if it had not been taken to the market, the respondents would have fallen
in the category of Part-II of the employment for which the Act of 1948 applies.
13. The appellants have tried to put an extra gloss over the wordings in
Part-II of the Schedule so as to mean that unless the agricultural produce is
taken to the market for storage or for delivery, it would not fall in the requisite
category for the application of the Act of 1948. This requirement is with respect
to incidental operations connected with farming and in that case, even persons
who are working for transportation or preparation for transportation or are
involved in carriage of the produce to the market would form part of that
category. By any explanation to the definition, the respondents fall in the
Page No.# 6/6
category of employees defined under Part-II to the Schedule of the Act of 1948.
14. This Court, therefore, finds that for right reasons, the RLCC as also the
learned Single Judge repelled the contentions of the appellants.
15. There is no merit in this appeal and is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
