Gujarat High Court
Surendranagar-Dudhrej-Vadhwan ... vs Rekhaben Kanaiyalal Raval on 12 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19980 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SURENDRANAGAR-DUDHREJ-VADHWAN MUNICIPALITY
Versus
REKHABEN KANAIYALAL RAVAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
CHANDRESH N JANI(7846) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SUSHMA M JANI(7841) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 12/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Municipality as petitioner has filed this petition
challenging order of Labour Court, Surendranagar dated
17.06.2023, in Minimum Wages Application No.2 of 2022
whereby, Labour Court directed the petitioner-Municipality to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
make payment of salary to respondent-employee from
01.08.2014 to 30.04.2020 under the provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act. It is also held that the amount already paid to
respondent-employee shall be deducted from the total amount
as directed under order dated 17.06.2023. Cost of Rs.1,000/-
was also awarded.
2. Notice in this case was issued on 28.11.2023 and ad-
interim relief in terms of Para-17(C) of the petition was
granted till the next date of hearing.
3. Considering the issue involved and with the consent of
learned advocates for the respective parties, the present
petition is taken up for final disposal today.
4. Brief facts, referred in the petition, are as under:
The petitioner is a Municipality duly constituted under
the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. It was
case of the respondent-employee that she had worked with the
Municipality for more than four hours and less than six hours
a day and therefore, she would be entitled for payment of
wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
("the Act" for short).
Further, pursuant to the decision in Writ Petition (PIL)
No.244 of 2014, there was revision in the Minimum Wages
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
paid to part-time employees under Government Resolution
dated 06.09.2014. Under the said Government Resolution, the
workmen, who were working for more than four hours and
less than six hours, were to be paid Rs.220/- per day. The
Government Resolution also refers to other additional
allowances to be paid to the employees. The petitioner
therefore made an application seeking Wages under the
provisions of Minimum Wages Act. The said application was
decided by an order dated 17.06.2023 directing the petitioner
to make payment from 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2020 under the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. It was also directed
that the amount paid earlier shall be deducted. Aggrieved by
the order dated 17.06.2023, the present petition is filed.
5. Heard Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the
petitioner-Municipality and Mr.C.N.Jani, learned advocate for
respondent-employee.
6. Mr.Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner
submitted that the order dated 17.06.2023 is erroneous on the
following grounds:
6.1 Under Sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Minimum
Wages Act,1948, ('the Act' for short), an application seeking
minimum Wages is to be filed within a period of six months
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
from the date of claim. First proviso to the said section refers
that if an application is not made within a period of six
months from the date on which the minimum wages or other
amount become payable, an application seeking condonation of
delay shall have to be filed before the authority with sufficient
cause, and authority is to decide such application. Upon such
application, if the authority is of the opinion that sufficient
cause is made out than only belated application beyond six
months shall be entertained. In this case, the respondent-
employee made Application No.2 of 2022 on 30.09.2022,
claiming minimum wages for the period 01.08.2014 to
30.04.2020. Since the application was filed without seeking
condonation of delay, the application itself is not maintainable
and the authority ought to have rejected the same on the
ground of limitation. Even, no justification was provided before
the authority for delay.
6.2 On the aspect of delay, Learned Advocate relied upon
following decisions to submit that when the application was
filed without an application seeking condonation of delay, the
application itself is not maintainable.
(i) Kalpeshbhai Natwarlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
reported in 2009(3) GLH 372;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
(ii) Darabsha Sorabji vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in
2005(3) G.L.H. 436;
(iii) Digvijay Parbatsinh Rana vs. State of Gujarat & 7 in
Special Civil Application No.12943 of 2017.
(iv) Om Prakash Singh Son of Durga Prasad Singh vs. The
State of Bihar and others in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case
No.1071 of 2019.
6.3 Further, respondent-employee had not worked for more
than six hours a day. She used to come for work in the
morning and in afternoon session of the school and she used
to work for four hours a day, which the authority failed to
consider. Respondent failed in producing any evidence in
support of her working for six hours a day and therefore, in
absence of any evidence, the authority directing the petitioner
to pay minimum wages for six hours as per the order in Writ
Petition (PIL) No.244 of 2014 with Government Resolution
dated 06.09.2014 is erroneous. He therefore submitted that the
petition may kindly be allowed.
7. On the other hand Mr.C.N.Jani, learned advocate for the
respondent-employee submitted that order of the authority
directing to pay minimum wages under the provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
Minimum Wages Act is appropriate on the following grounds:
7.1 The respondent preferred an application under section
20(2) of the M.W. Act (Annexure "F" Page-107), claiming
minimum wages as under: -
(i) For the period 01.08.2014 to 01.08.2019, though the
respondent was entitled for Rs. 5,66,640/-, only Rs. 97,900/-
was paid on 28.03.2019.
(ii) For the period 01.08.2019 to 30.04.2020, though the
respondent was entitled for Rs. 75,552/- only Rs.31,626/- was
paid on 22.06.2022.
7.2 Thus, though respondent-employee under the provisions
of the M.W.Act, was entitled for payment of Rs.6,42,192/-, for
the period from 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2020, she was paid
Rs.1,29,526/- only. Therefore, for the balance payment of
Rs.5,12,666/- she preferred an application on 30.09.2022.
The last payment received by the employee under the
provisions of Minimum Wages Act was on 22.06.2022. Since,
short payment was received, she preferred an application
under section 20(2) of the Act seeking difference of payment of
Rs.5,12,666/- for the period from 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2020 on
30.09.2022. The application thus under section 20(2) of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
M.W.,Act was filed within six months from the last payment
received and therefore, there is no delay in preferring an
application as contended by the petitioner.
7.3 Inviting attention to the application filed under section
20(2) of the Act, Learned Advocate submitted that clause 3 of
the said application refers to difference of payment sought and
the last payment received. Thus, there being no delay,
provision of section 20(2) would not be applicable and in
absence of delay, the question of filing of application seeking
condonation of delay would not arise.
7.4 On merits, Learned Advocate for the respondent
submitted that the employee was working as part-timer Peon
with the petitioner-Municipality, which is evident from the
letter dated 18.10.2019 at Annexure "S" (Page-146). In the
letter written by the school in which the respondent was
working refers to hours of working. The same were more
than four hours and less than six hours a day. Therefore, as
held by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.244 of 2014 and
referred in the Government Resolution dated 06.09.2014, the
workman would be entitled to minimum wages as claimed.
Therefore, the order of the authority being just and proper, no
interference is called for.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
8. Considered the submissions and the decisions relied upon.
From the facts and evidence on record, it is noticed that in
Writ Petition (PIL) No.244 of 2014, this Court has held as
under:
"5. We have thoughtfully considered the matter in
view of the previous interim order passed by this
Court and we are of the view that the employees
who are working as part-timers since years and they
are not getting any other benefits, we put them at
par with the workers getting remuneration under
the Minimum Wages Act. As and when the revision
takes place for the minimum rates under the
Minimum Wages Act, the same benefits shall be
extended to the part-time employees who are
working with various Departments of the
Government either for less than 4 hours per day or
more than 4 hours but less less than 9 hours per
day. This exercise shall be taken by the State
Government within a period of 3 (three) months
from the date of revision under the Minimum
Wages Act."
9. Admittedly, pursuant to above PIL, the State Government
issued Government Resolution dated 06.09.2014 wherein, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
held that part-time employees working for more than four
hours and less than six hours a day shall be entitled to
Rs.220/- per day. Clause (b) of the said Government Resolution
refers to additional allowances to be paid to part-timers.
Therefore, it is not in dispute that the employees, who are
working for more than four hours and less than nine hours
shall be entitled to Rs.220/- per day along with Allowances, as
referred in the Government Resolution dated 06.09.2014.
10. Further, from the record, it is also evident that
respondent-employee preferred an application on 30.09.2022
seeking balance of minimum wages payable to her for the
period 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2020. In the application at Clause
(3), it is stated that she received last payment on 22.06.2022
and therefore, she would be entitled to get difference of
Rs.5,12,666/-. For the ready reference, the details provided in
the application are as under:
Period Wages Wages Paid Due Wages
01/08/2014 to 566640/- 97900/- Paid on 468740/-
01/08/2019 28/03/2019 in
MCA-1273/2018
01/08/2019 to 75552/- 31626/- on 43926/-
30/04/2020 Dtd.22/06/2022
Total 642192/- 129526/- 512666/-
Thus, last payment admittedly was received by
respondent on 22.06.2022 and the application was preferred on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
30.09.2022. Section 20(2) of the Payment of Wages Act reads
as under:
"20(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) Where an employee has any claim of the
nature referred to in sub-section (1), the employee
himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a
registered trade union authorised in writing to act
on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person
acting with the permission of the Authority
appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such
Authority for a direction under sub-section (3):
Provided that every such application shall be
presented within six months from the date on which
the minimum wages or other amount became
payable:
Provided further that any application may be
admitted after the said period of six months when
the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had
sufficient cause for not making the application
within such period."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
11. Thus, Section 20(2) of the Act provides for making of an
application for any claim as referred in sub-clause (1) of an
employee. First proviso to the section 20(2) provides that any
such application under section 20(2), shall be presented within
six months from the date on which the minimum wages or
other amount became payable. Second proviso refers to an
application to be made in cases of delay, if the application
under section 20(2), is not be made within six months.
Reverting to the facts, it is not in dispute that the last
payment made to the respondent was on 22.06.2022. Here,
though the amount of Rs.6,42,192/- was payable to the
respondent, only Rs.1,29,526/- was paid and therefore,
balance of amount of Rs.5,12,666/- was payable to the
respondent on 22.06.2022. Here is not a case where no amount
was paid but it is a case of lesser payment and therefore, she
has made an application for her claim within six months
seeking balance amount payable for the period in question. It
is on 22.06.2022, the respondent came to know that lesser
amount was paid and therefore, the period of limitation would
start from 22.06.2022. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court,
the application was made within six months as referred under
Section 20(2) of the Act.
12. In view of the above, contention of the petitioner that
the application is barred by limitation is of no consequence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
Therefore, no application seeking condonation was required as
contended and referred in the first proviso to section 20(2) of
the Act. Therefore, first contention of learned advocate for the
petitioner that the application is barred by limitation does not
merit acceptance.
Moreover, the contention of learned advocate for the
petitioner that in the application, the workman has admitted
that the said amount on 22.06.2022 was paid towards Dearness
Allowance is of no consequence because in the payment made,
no reference was made of Dearness Allowance.
13. With regard to the number of hours of work the
employee was working as part-timer, in the opinion of this
Court, is also not in dispute in view of the letter dated
18.08.2020 by the school in which, the respondent employee
was working. In the letter dated 18.10.2019, the School
Authority, has stated that this school is working in two shifts
and two Peons are working for the following timing:
First shift refers to period from 6:30 am to 12:30 pm and
second shift refers to period from 12 noon to 5:30 pm.
The special note put in the letter, refers that the said
letter is issued based on the record of the school and further
the letter is signed by the Principal of the said School and
therefore, authenticity of the said document cannot be denied
and the same is rightly not controverted by the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
Thus, from the letter dated 18.10.2019, it is evident that the
respondent- employee was working for more than four hours
and less than six hours a day and therefore, she would be
entitled for minimum Wages as referred in Government
Resolution dated 06.09.2014.
14. On the aspect of the decisions relied upon by learned
advocate for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that all
the decisions are in respect of the aspect where there was a
requirement of filing a separate application seeking
condonation of delay. In the facts of the present case, in the
opinion of this Court, the application filed by the workman
dated 30.09.2022 was well within the time prescribed under
section 20(2), of the Act and once the application is filed
within the limitation prescribed under the provisions of the
Act, there cannot be any requirement of filing any application
seeking condonation of delay and therefore, the decisions
relied upon are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. In view of the above, the order passed by the authority
dated 17.06.2023 directing the petitioner to pay minimum
Wages for the period from 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2022 after
deducting the amount already paid is not erroneous and does
not call for any interference.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that for execution
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/19980/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2024
undefined
of the order dated 17.06.2023, an application under section
33(c)(2) of the Act has been preferred by the employee and the
same is pending.
16. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to comply
with the directions within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of the order. In view of the above, the present
petition is rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
DIPTI PATEL...
