Madras High Court
Shri K. Raghavendra vs Regional Labour Commissioner ... on 13 June, 2023
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 13.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.Nos.25707, 24225, 25229, 25708, 25709, 25710, 25711, 8144, 22320
of 2013
and
W.P.No.22320 of 2014
and W.M.P.No.4921 of 2016
and
W.P.Nos.7877, 30318, 30641, 30642 of 2015
In W.P.No.25707 of 2013 :
1.Shri K. Raghavendra
The Dy. Manager
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
No.39, Montieh Road, Egmore,
Chennai. - 600 008.
2.Shri Raghavendra Naik, Asst.V.P.(HR)
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
No.41, Ground Floor, Shree Essarar Tower,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ...Petitioners.
Vs.
1.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Chennai & Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
2.Smt.E.D.Shoba,
Labour Enforcement Officer (C)
Chennai.
3.Shri Boobendra, Proprietor,
Multihands, No.244/239,
Sunmac Executive Centre,
Annasalai, Chennai - 600 006. ...Respondents.
Prayer in W.P.No.25707 of 2013 : Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of Certiorari to call for the records
and to quash the impugned order dated 08.07.2013 pertaining to claim
application 378 to 383 of 2012 passed by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioners : M/s.N.V.S. and Association
For Respondents
For R1 & R2 :Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan,
Deputy Solicitor General.
For R1 & R2 :Mr.J.Madanagopal in W.P.No.24225/2013.
For R3 :Mr.Shivakumar and Suresh in
W.P.Nos.24225, 25229, 8144 of 2013.
R6 to R10, 12, 13, : -NA-
15, 16 to 18.
R8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17: -NA-
18 and 19.
R4 to R7, 10, 11, 13, 14 : Not ready in notice.
R3 : -NA- in W.P.No.22320 of 2014.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
R3 & R4 - NA- in W.P.Nos.25263 to 25266 of 2013
R3 & R4 - NA-
R3 : -NA- in W.P.No.28181 of 2013.
R3 & R4 :Mr.M.R.Raghavan in W.P.No.13037 of 2014
COMMON ORDER
These batch of writ petitions raise a very simple but interesting
question. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.7877, 30641, 30642, 30318, 8144,
22320, 25229, 25207, 24225 of 2013 and 22320 of 2014 etc. batch are all
providers of security services to various establishments. That security
service, which is a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 is not in dispute. The dispute is whether the "appropriate Government"
for such establishments is the State Government or the Central Government.
2. Section 2
.............
(b)"appropriate Government" means-
(i). In relation to any scheduled employment carried on
by or under the authority of the Central Government.
(ii). Or a railway administration,
(c). Or in relation to mine,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
(d). Oil filed.
(e). major port.
(f). any other Corporation established by a Central Act,
or the Central Government.
3. Insofar as the scheduled employments which are not covered by any
of the aforesaid clauses are concerned, the "appropriate Government" under
the Act is the State Government.
4. The petitioners in these cases are providing security services to
Banks. Banks, which are not established by the Central Government, are
corporate entities in themselves, over which, neither the State nor the Central
Government have direct control. The HDFC Bank, for example, is a private
Bank and it is not established "by or under" the authority of the Central
Government. The Bank obtains a licence from the RBI under the RBI Act,
1934, therefore, HDFC bank does not come under Clause (1) of 2 (a) of the
said Act. Insofar as Vodafone is concerned, it is a private Telecom Industry
and the same logic, which applies to a private corporate entity like HDFC
bank, also applies to this institution also. The test words should be "by or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
under" the authority of the Central Government.
5. This condition having not been satisfied, these writ petitions have to
succeed and accordingly they are allowed.
6. Now turning to the security staff provided by the petitioners in
W.P.No.7877 of 2015 batch etc., they are also private employees who do not
function under the authority of the Central Government. I would respectfully
follow the judgment of this court in A.K.Ahmed & Co., Vs. Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Madras and Anr. 1994 LW 91. Merely because a
contract, which is entered into by the writ petitioners with an entity created
by or under the authority of the Central Government, would not mean that the
contractors themselves fall under that category. There has to be a difference
between the principal employer, who is created "by or under" the authority of
the Central Government and any other person carrying on a legitimate
business with the said entity. It is at best "principal to principal" arrangement
that the control of the employee continues to be with the contractors who, at
times, may act on the directions of the principal employer, but that does not
make them employees of the Central Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
7. Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India, would bring to the notice of this court the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in A2Z Infraservices Ltd Vs. Union of India and 3 Ors. (2018) 3
LLJ 363. He would argue that in case, the Court had directed the Railway
Administration to pay the difference between the rate fixed by the Central
Government with respect to the employees of the contractors who are sent to
the Railway Administration for House Keeping Services, this judgment does
not apply to the facts of the case before me. The issue in that case was the
interpretation of a "price variation clause" in the contract. It does not deal
with the situation as to what is the "appropriate Government" for the purpose
of fixing liabilities on the parties. The same is the situation with respect to
the other authorities cited by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India in
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Authority under Minimum Wages Act and Labour
Commissioner and Ors. cited in MANU/WB/3233/2019 and Wajahat
Hussain Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online Calcutta
13159. As both the judgments do not deal as to what is the appropriate
Government for the purpose of the Act, they do not apply to the facts of the
case. I hold that if the contractor is not created by the Parliament or does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
act "by or under" the Authority of the Central Government, the appropriate
authority insofar as the said contractor is concerned is only the State
Government. Consequently, all the writ petitions have to be allowed and
accordingly they are allowed.
8. There are yet another category of persons in W.P.Nos.22320 of 2014
and 25207 of 2013. Insofar as the House Keeping Contractors providing
House Keeping Services to Kotak Mahindra Bank and Vodafone Telecom,
the logic which applies to providers of security service applies to these
petitioners also. They are not functioning "by or under" the authority of the
Central Government in discharge of their duties. It is only a contractual
employment and therefore, these writ petitions also have to succeed. The writ
petitions stand allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
also closed.
13.06.2023
nst
Index : Yes/No
Speaking : Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25707 of 2013 and etc. batch.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J
nst
To:
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Chennai & Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
W.P.Nos.25707 of 2013 etc., batch cases
13.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
