Gujarat High Court
Sanskruit Education Society vs Pravinbhai Ambalal Vasava on 10 March, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 223 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 224 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 225 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 226 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 227 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 228 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 229 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 230 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 231 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 232 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 233 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 234 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 235 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 236 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 237 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 238 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 239 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 240 of 2018
==========================================================
SANSKRUIT EDUCATION SOCIETY, & 2 other(s)
Versus
PRAVINBHAI AMBALAL VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHANKUMAR R MAURYA FOR MR D K PUJ (3836) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER(2104) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Page 1 of 17
Downloaded on : Fri Mar 11 21:37:15 IST 2022
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
Date : 10/03/2022
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Subramaniam Iyer
waives service of notice of rule for and on
behalf of the respondent-workmen.
2. Since the short issue is involved in the
present group of writ petitions, the same are
heard and decided analogously by this common
order.
3. The present writ petitions have been filed
for quashing and setting aside the orders passed
by the Labour Court, Vadodara in recovery
applications filed by the respondent-employees.
The respondent-employees are drivers and
conductors.
4. Since the orders are similar in nature, but of
different dates, the facts are incorporated from
the writ petition being Special Civil Application
No.223 of 2018.
4.1 The petitioner No.1 is a Trust and petitioner
No.2 is the Principal of Delhi Public School
(DPS) run by the petitioner No.1-Trust and the
petitioner No.3 is a contractor, rendering
services to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
4.2 The respondent-workman was appointed by the
petitioner-School and the petitioner No.3 was
marking his presence in the Register maintained
by the petitioner-School. It is the case of the
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
respondent-employee that at the time of
appointment, the respondent-workman was paid
monthly salary of Rs.750/-, which is less than
minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
It was alleged that the petitioner No.3 was
taking services of driver/ conductor, but was not
being paid minimum wages from 23.01.2003. The
respondent-workman therefore, prayed for payment
of the differential amount from the date of his
appointment till 31.05.2011 along with interest
at the rate of 18%. Along with the said
application, the details of his working hours,
basic salary, dearness allowance etc. and
detailed calculation of claim was annexed.
4.3 By the impugned order dated 17.01.2016,
passed in Recovery application filed under the
provision of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act), the Labour Court,
Vadodara awarded an amount of Rs.1,29,034.30/- as
differential amount of wages. Thereafter, the
respondent-employee filed an application under
Section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act for issuance of
recovery certificate, which was allowed vide
order dated 26.10.2017.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Learned advocate Mr.Maurya appearing for the
petitioners at the outset, has submitted that the
Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
application filed under Section 33C(2) of the
I.D. Act, when the claim itself is disputed. He
has submitted that the respondent-workman has
filed the application against the petitioners
under the provision of Section 33C(2) of the I.D.
Act claiming wages. It is submitted that in fact
the petitioner No.3 is a contractor rendering
service to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The
respondent-workman was appointed by the
petitioner No.2-School and petitioner No.3 was
marking his presence in the Register maintained
by the petitioner-School and at that point of
time, the respondent-workman was being paid
monthly salary of Rs.750/-.
5.1 Learned advocate has further submitted that
on notice being served, the petitioner No.2 filed
a reply at Exh.11 and also produced certain
documents with a separate list. Similarly, a
reply was filed by the petitioner No.3 and a
specific contention was raised before the Labour
Court that the petitioner-School had given a
contract to M/s.EssPee Corporation and the
respondent-workman joined the said contractor
after March, 2004 and when the contract of
M/s.EssPee Corporation came to an end, the
drivers and conductors working with the said
contractor have left their services. It is
submitted by him that the respondent-workman
thereafter, joined Anmol Education Service and
the said contract was continued till May, 2005
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
and liability to pay him the minimum wages lies
with Anmol Education Service and not with the
petitioner. It is further submitted that from
June, 2005, the contract entered into between
petitioner Nos.2 and 3, under which the
petitioner No.3 was providing service of the
drivers and conductors to the petitioner Nos. 1
and 2 and they had paid minimum wages till
31.05.2011 and their provident fund was also
deducted.
5.2 It is thus, submitted by the learned advocate
Mr.Maurya that in view of the aforesaid dispute,
the Labour Court could not have passed the award
granting differential amount of minimum wages
without even joining the contractors in the
proceedings. Thus, he has submitted that the
proceedings under the provisions of Section
33C(2) of the I.D. Act are in the form of
execution proceedings and, therefore, the
application claiming the amount under the said
provision is not maintainable without prior
adjudication. It is submitted that the dispute
should have been first examined by the competent
authority under the Minimum Wages Act or by the
Labour Court in reference proceedings under
section 10 of the Act.
5.3 In support of his submissions, he has placed
reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court in
the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Vs.
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
Brijpal Singh, (2005) 8 S.C.C. 58, Punjab
Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and Ors. Vs.
Suresh Chand and Ors., (1978) 2 S.C.C. 144,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak
and Anr., (1995) 1 S.C.C. 235, State Bank of
India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Ors., (2001) 1
S.C.C. 73 and U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Birendra A Bhandari, (2006) 10
S.C.C. 211. Thus, he has submitted that the writ
petitions may be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Iyer has
submitted that the writ petitions are not
required to be entertained since the respondent-
workman, who is working under the petitioners, is
entitled to the wages as per the Minimum Wages
Act, which is not paid by him. It is submitted
that the Labour Court, after considering the
documentary evidence, has passed the order
directing the payment of differential amount to
the respondent-workman and hence, recovery
application has been precisely decided by the
Labour Court, which may not be disturbed.
6.1 In support of his submissions, he has placed
reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Manganese Ore India Ltd. Vs. Chandi
Lal Saha, AIR 1991 SC 520. Thus, he has submitted
that the present writ petitions may be rejected.
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
CONCLUSION
7. Heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and also perused the documents
as pointed out by them.
8. The issue raised in the present group of writ
petitions is whether the Labour Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the application filed
under the provision of Section 33C(2) of the I.D.
Act or not and order the grant of the
differential amount of the wages claimed by the
respondent-workmen in wake of the fact that they
have been engaged by different contractors for
different period.
9. As the facts will suggest and it is not in
dispute that initially the petitioner No.3 was
engaged by the petitioner-School and the contract
of their service was given to M/s.EssPee
Corporation and the respondent-workmen had joined
the said corporation. Thereafter, from March,
2004, the contract with M/s.EssPee Corporation
came to end and the respondent-workmen, who were
drivers and conductors respectively, have joined
Anmol Education Service and the said contract
continued till May, 2005. In June, 2005, when the
said contract was over, the same was entered
between the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, under which
the petitioner No.3 was providing service of the
drivers and conductors to the petitioner Nos.1
and 2. It is the case of the petitioner Nos.2 and
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
3 that they had paid minimum wages till
31.05.2011 and provident fund was also deducted.
10. From the proceedings, it appears that the
petitioners had left M/s.EssPee Corporation and
had also withdrawn the provident fund
contribution. Thus, the petitioners have disputed
that amount of wages and also the liability of
paying the minimum wages. There are different
contractors and the period of engagement of the
respondent-workmen is also different. It is also
not in dispute that the respondents in fact had
withdrawn the provident fund amount from one
contractor and thereafter, have joined another
contractor. The Labour Court, in view of such
disputed question, could not have given findings
with regard to grant of differential amount of
minimum wages under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.
Act.
11. Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act reads as
under:
"[33C. Recovery of Money Due from an Employer-
(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an
employer under a settlement or an award or under the
provisions of chapter 5A or chapter 5B, the workman
himself or any other person authorised by him in
writing in this behalf, or, in the case, of the death
of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without
prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an
application to the appropriate Government for the
recovery of money due to him, and if the appropriate
Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it
shall issue a certificate for that amount to the
collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the
same manner as an arrear of land revenue:
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
Provided that every such application shall be made
within one year from the date on which money
became due to the workman from the employer;
Provided further that any such application may be
entertained after the expiry of the said period of
one year, if the appropriate Government is
satisfied that the application had sufficient
cause for not making the application within the
said period.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money and if any question
arises as to the amount of money due or as to the
amount at which such benefit should be computed, then
the question may, subject to any rules that may be
made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court
as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate
Government within a period not exceeding three months.
Provided that where the presiding officer of a
Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient
so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, extend such period by such further period
as he may think fit."
12. It would be apposite to refer to the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Brijpal Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, after
survey of various decisions on the interpretation
of the provisions of Section 33C of the I.D. Act,
has held thus:-
"10. It is well settled that the workman can proceed u/s.
33C(2) only after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a
complaint u/s. 33A or on a reference u/s. 10 that the
order of discharge or dismissal was not justified and has
set aside that order and reinstated the workman. This
Court in the case of Punjab Beverages Put. Ltd. V/s.
Suresh Chand, 1978 2 SCC 144 held that a proceeding u/s.
33C(2) is a proceeding in the nature of execution
proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates the amount
of money due to a workman from the employer, or, if the
workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money, proceeds to compute the
benefit in terms of money. Proceeding further, this Court
held that the right to the money which is sought to be
calculated or to the benefit which is sought to be
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
computed must be an existing one, that is to say, already
adjudicated upon or provided for and must arise in the
course of and in relation to the relationship between the
industrial workman, and his employer. This Court further
held as follows:
"It is not competent to the Labour Court exercising
jurisdiction u/s. 33C(2) to arrogate to itself the
functions of an industrial tribunal and entertain a
claim which is not based on an existing right but
which may appropriately be made the subject matter of
an industrial dispute in a reference u/s. 10 of the
Act."
11. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s.
Ganesh Razek & Anr., 1995 1 SCC 235, this Court held as
under:-
"12. The High Court has referred to some of these
decisions but missed the true import thereof. The ratio
of these decisions clearly indicates that where the very
basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a
certain benefit is disputed, there being no earlier
adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the
dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental to the
benefit claimed and is, therefore, clearly outside the
scope of a proceeding u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act. The Labour
Court has no jurisdiction to first decide the workmen's
entitlement and then proceed to compare the benefit so
adjudicated on that basis in exercise of its power u/s.
33-C(2) of the Act. It is only when the entitlement has
been earlier adjudicated or recognised by the employer
and thereafter for the purpose of implementation or
enforcement thereof some ambiguity required
interpretation that the interpretation is treated as
incidental to the Labour Court's power u/s. 33-C(2) like
that of the Executing Court's power to interpret the
decree for the purpose of its execution.
13. In these matters, the claim of the respondent-workmen
who were all daily-rated/casual workers, to be paid wages
at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been
earlier settled by adjudication or recognition by the
employer without which the stage for computation of that
benefit could not reach. The workmen's claim of doing the
same kind of work and their entitlement to be paid wages
at the same rate as the regular workmen on the principle
of "equal pay for equal work" being disputed, without an
adjudication of their dispute resulting in acceptance of
their claim to this effect, there could be no occasion
for computation of the benefit on that basis to attract
Sec. 33- C(2). The mere fact that some other workmen are
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
alleged to have made a similar claim by filing writ
petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution is indicative
of the need for adjudication of the claim of entitlement
to the benefit before computation of such a benefit could
be sought. Respondents claim is not based on a prior
adjudication made in the writ petition filed by some
other workmen upholding a similar claim which could be
relied on as an adjudication enduring to the benefit of
these respondents as well. The writ petitions by some
other workmen to which some reference was casually made,
particulars of which are not available in these matters,
have, therefore, no relevance for the present purpose. It
must, therefore, be held that the Labour Court as well as
the High Court were in error in treating as maintainable
the applications made u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act by these
respondents."
12. In the case of State Bank of India V/s. Ram Chandra
Dubey & Ors., 2001 1 SCC 73, this Court held as under :-
"7. When a reference is made to an Industrial
Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to
whether the termination of a workman is justified or
not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist
of examination of the question whether the
reinstatement should be with full or partial back
wages or none. Such a question is one of fact
depending upon the evidence to be produced before the
Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment,
the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one
of the factors to be considered in determining
whether or not reinstatement should be with full back
wages or with continuity of employment. Such
questions can be appropriately examined only in a
reference. When a reference is made u/s. 10 of the
Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be
determined by the Tribunal and in this particular
case, a specific question has been referred to the
Tribunal as to the nature of relief to be granted to
the workmen.
(8) The principles enunciated in the decisions
referred by either side can be summed up as follows:
Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money and which he is
entitled to receive from his employer and is denied
of such benefit can approach Labour Court u/s. 33-
C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced u/
s. 33-C(2) of the Act is necessarily a per-existing
benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The
difference between a preexisting right or benefit on
one hand and the right or benefit, which is
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
considered just and fair on the other hand is vital.
The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court
exercising powers u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act while the
latter does not. It cannot be spelt out from the
award in the present case that such a right or
benefit has accrued to the workman as the specific
question of the relief granted is confined only to
the reinstatement without stating anything more as to
the back wages. Hence that relief must be deemed to
have been denied, for what is claimed but not granted
necessarily gets denied in judicial or quasijudicial
proceeding. Further when a question arises as to the
adjudication of a claim for back wages all relevant
circumstances which will have to be gone into, are to
be considered in a judicious manner. Therefore, the
appropriate forum wherein such question of back wages
could be decided is only in a proceeding to whom a
reference u/s. 10 of the Act is made. To state that
merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be
entitled, under the terms of award, to all his
arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect
because several factors will have to be considered,
as stated earlier, to find out whether the workman is
entitled to back wages at all and to what extent.
Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court
ought not to have presumed that the award of the
Labour Court for grant of back wages is implied in
the relief of reinstatement or that the award of
reinstatement itself conferred right for claim of
back wages".
13. Thus it is clear from the principle enunciated in the
above decisions that the appropriate forum where question
of back wages could be decided is only in a proceeding to
whom a reference under Section 10of the Act is made.
Thereafter, the Labour Court, in the instant case, cannot
arrogate to itself the functions of an Industrial Tribunal
and entertain the claim made by the respondent herein
which is not based on an existing right but which may
appropriately be made the subject matter of an industrial
dispute in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act.
Therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the claim made by the respondent herein under
Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act in an undetermined claim
and until such adjudication is made by the appropriate
forum, the respondent-workman cannot ask the Labour Court
in an application under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act to
disregard his dismissal as wrongful and on that basis to
compute his wages. It is, therefore, impossible for us to
accept the arguments of Mrs. Shymala Pappu that the
respondent-workman can file application under Section
33C(2) for determination and payment of wages on the basis
that he continues to be in service pursuant to the said
order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 15172
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
of 1987 dated 28.10.1987. The argument by the learned
counsel for the workman has no force and is unacceptable.
The Labour Court, in our opinion, has erred in allowing
the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act
and ordering payment of not only the salary but also bonus
to the workman although he has not attended the office of
the appellants after the stay order obtained by him. The
Labour Court has committed a manifest error of law in
passing the order in question which was rightly impugned
before the High Court and erroneously dismissed by the
High Court. The High Court has also equally committed a
manifest error in not considering the scope of Section
33C(2) of the I.D. Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation
in setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court in
Misc. Case No. 11 of 1993 dated 23.8.1995 and the order
dated 9.1.2002 passed by the High Court in C.M.W.P. No.
36406 of 1995 as illegal and uncalled for. We do so
accordingly."
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Birendra A
Bhandari (supra), while examining claim for
payment of arrears relating to differentiation of
salary, D.A. arising out of recommendation of 5 th
Pay Commission, has held thus:-
"7. The benefit which can be enforced under Section 33
C(2) is a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a
preexisting right.
8. In the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey
& Ors., [2001] 1 SCC 73, this Court held as under:
"7. When a reference is made to an Industrial
Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to
whether the termination of a workman is justified or
not but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist
of examination of the question whether the
reinstatement should be with full or partial back
wages or none. Such a question is one of fact
depending upon the evidence to be produced before the
Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment,
the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere it is one
of the factors to be considered in determining
whether or not reinstatement should be with full back
wages or with continuity of employment. Such
questions can be appropriately examined only in a
reference. When a reference is made under Section 10
of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto
can be determined by the Tribunal and in this
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
particular case, a specific question has been
referred to the Tribunal as to the nature of relief
to be granted to the workmen.
8. The principles enunciated in the decisions
referred by either side can be summed up as follows:
Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his
employer any money or any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money and which he is
entitled to receive from his employer and is denied
of such benefit can approach Labour Court under
Section 33 C(2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be
enforced under Section 33 C(2) of the Act is
necessarily a pre-existing benefit or one flowing
from a pre-existing right The difference between a
pre- existing right or benefit on one hand and the
right or benefit, which is considered just and fair
on the other hand is vital. The former falls within
jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under
Section 33 C(2) of the Act while the latter does not.
It cannot be spelt out from the award in the present
case that such a right or benefit has accrued to the
workman as the specific question of the relief
granted is confined only to the reinstatement without
stating anything more as to the back wages. Hence
that relief must be deemed to have been denied, for
what is claimed but not granted necessarily gets
denied in judicial or quasijudicial proceeding.
Further when a question arises as to the adjudication
of a claim for back wages all relevant circumstances
which will have to be gone into, are to be considered
in a judicious manner. Therefore, the appropriate
forum wherein such question of back wages could be
decided is only in a proceeding to whom, a reference
under Section 10 of the Act is made. To state that
merely upon reinstatement, a workman would be
entitled, under the terms of award, to all his
arrears of pay and allowances would be incorrect
because several factors will have to be considered,
as stated earlier, to find out whether the workman is
entitled to back wages at all and to what extent.
Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court
ought not to have presumed that the award of the
Labour Court for grant of back wages is implied in
the relief of reinstatement or that the award of
reinstatement itself conferred right for claim of
back wages."
9. The position was re-iterated by a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Brijpal Singh,
[2005] 8 SCC 58.
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
10. Judged in the background of principles set out above,
the orders passed by the Labour Court and the High Court
are indefensible and are accordingly set aside."
14. The Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgments
has held that the benefits under the provision of
Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act can be enforced, on
a pre-existing right. It is also held that the
Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
the claim made under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.
Act in an undetermined claim and until such
adjudication is made by the appropriate forum,
the respondent-workmen cannot ask the Labour
Court in an application under Section 33C(2) of
the I.D. Act. It is held that the workmen can
proceed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act only
after the Tribunal has adjudicated on a complaint
under section 33A or on a reference under section
10 of the I.D. Act.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Punjab
Beverage Pvt. Limited (supra), has held that a
proceeding under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act
is a proceeding in the nature of execution
proceeding in which the Labour Court calculates
the amount of money due to a workman from the
employer or if the workman is entitled to any
benefit which is capable of being computed in
terms of money, proceeds to compute the benefit
in terms of money and such right to the money
which is sought to be calculated or to the
benefit which is sought to be computed must be an
existing one, that is to say, already adjudicated
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
upon or provided for and must arise in the course
of and in relation to the relationship between
the industrial workman, and his employer.
16. In the present case, as noted hereinabove,
there is dispute with regard to the liability of
payment of minimum wages as there are various
contractors, under which the respondent-workmen
have served. Petitioner No.2 had contended that
no amount is due and payable. The fact also
reveals that the respondent-workmen were also
engaged by one Anmol Education Service till
October, 2005. The Labour Court has very
cursorily passed the order conferring the
liability on all the petitioners, without
discussing the contract period. Thus, without
prior adjudication on the aforesaid facts, the
Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order
under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. Reliance
placed on the jugement of Apex Court in the case
of Chandi Lal Saha (supra) will not rescue the
respondent-workmen since, in the case before the
Apex Court, the parties had admitted the fixation
of minimum rates and there was no dispute with
regard to the period and liability of payment
minimum wages.
17. Thus, the captioned writ petitions succeed.
The impugned orders, in each of the writ
petitions, are hereby quashed and set aside.
However, it is clarified that it will be open for
the respondent-workmen to approach appropriate
C/SCA/223/2018 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
forum by filing appropriate application(s)
claiming differential amount of the wages. Rule
made absolute.
18. Registry to place a copy of this order in
each of the connected matters.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA
