Telangana High Court
L And T Metro Rail Hyderabad Limited vs The Authority Under The Minimum Wages ... on 5 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.11221, 11228, 11229, 11235, 11238, and 11240 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Challenge in these writ petitions is to the action of respondent Nos.1,
2, 4, and 5, in initiating proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
against the petitioner. In view of commonality of subject matter, these writ
petitions were analogously heard and taken up for disposal by this Common
Order. For reference, the facts in W.P.No.11221 of 2022 are taken.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner as per the writ affidavit in
W.P.No.11221 of 2022, is as follows:
Petitioner-L&T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having registered office at
Hyderabad Metro Rail Administrative Building, was engaged for the
implementation of the Hyderabad Metro Rail Project under Public Private
Partnership (PPP) model under the A.P. Municipal Tramways (Construction,
Operation & Maintenance Act) Act, 2008. Petitioner signed a Concession
Agreement with the then Government of Andhra Pradesh on 10.09.2010 for
implementation of the Project under Design-Build-Finance-Operate-
Transfer (DBFOT) basis. Over 99% of the shares are owned by the
petitioner, and one share that has 26% voting rights is owned by the
Government of Telangana. Government has formed a Nodal Agency by name
"Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited" (HMRL) for providing continuous support
and monitoring of the project. Petitioner has started its operations of
running metro trains with effect from 29.11.2017, and the last section of
Phase-I of the Metro Rail project became operational on 07.02.2020. Prior
approval of the Government of Telangana through the Nodal Agency HMRL
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
was required as per the provisions of Concession Agreement to be obtained
for all project agreements and all other works/actions, if any, undertaken by
the Petitioner. During the Project stage (i.e., the construction stage), the
Central Government, vide Notification No.S.O. 153(E) dated 24.01.2012
extended the provisions of the Metro Railways (Construction of Work) Act,
1978 (MRCW Act) to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad. Subsequently, by
another Notification S.O.152(E) dated 24.01.2012, the provisions of Metro
Railways (Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2002 (MROM Act) were also
extended to the Metropolitan area of Hyderabad. Thereafter, Notification
S.O.2445(E) dated 19.09.2014 added the Metro Alignment of Hyderabad
Metro Rail Corridors (Phase-I) in respect of the Metropolitan Area of
Hyderabad to the Schedule of the MRCW Act. It is the case of the petitioner
that HMRL is not carried on by or under the authority of the Central
Government, nor can it be construed as "Railway Administration" or a
"Railway Company", and the judgment of the Madras High Court in
W.P.No.26995 of 2009 filed by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, and
W.P.No.12931 of 2019 filed by CMRL Employees Union, cleared the air on
the aspect of "appropriate Government" and it was held that the State
Government would be appropriate Government insofar as the Metro
Railways operated by Private Entities are concerned, and the petitioner is a
non-government Metro Railway as defined under Section 2(1)(l) of the
MROM Act.
While so, respondent No.2-Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)
Hyderabad, issued a Notice dated 24.09.2014 to respondent No.7-HMRL
seeking information about the Project and the Contractors, and
consequently respondent No.7 addressed a letter dated 20.10.2014 to the
petitioner, with a copy to respondent No.2 advising petitioner to submit
necessary details. Thereafter, petitioner received another Notice dated
11.11.2014 from respondent No.2 stating that in view of the provisions of
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
MROM Act being extended to the Project, various labour laws and Central
Rules are applicable to the petitioner under the Minimum Wages Act,
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, and advising that the Contractors of the petitioner shall obtain
registrations and licenses from the officers concerned accordingly.
Petitioner, in response to the said communications, addressed a letter dated
16.12.2014 to respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner and its
contractors are covered under the State Labour Authorities for all statutory
compliances under the Labour Laws since inception of the Project. Another
Notice dated 24.12.2014 was received from respondent No.5-Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, whereupon the petitioner had
a meeting with respondent No.1-Regional Labour Commissioner, and
explained the position to him and also addressed letters dated 03.01.2015,
16.12.2014. Petitioner states that there was a total silence from respondents
indicating agreement and the petitioner has been continuing to comply with
the applicable Labour Laws towards the State Government of Telangana.
After more than five years, the respondent No.5 issued a Notice of
Inspection under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970
(the CLRA Act) vide e-mail dated 17.02.2020 stating that as per the
directives of respondent No.4-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Hyderabad, the inspection of petitioner establishment has been proposed
on 18.02.2020. Petitioner submitted letter dated 18.02.2020, enclosing copy
of its earlier letter dated 16.12.2014 reiterating its stand on the subject.
However, respondent No.5 visited the establishment of the petitioner on
02.03.2020 and prepared an Inspection Note observing that the petitioner
has not obtained the Certificate of Registration from the Registering Officer
of the Central Government under the CLRA Act. The said Inspection Note
was followed by a Notice dated 03.03.2020 alleging irregularities / non-
compliances calling upon the petitioner to rectify the alleged irregularities
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
and report compliance and also Show Cause as to why legal action should
not be taken against the petitioner for the alleged irregularities. Petitioner
submitted a detailed explanation vide letter dated 27.03.2020, however,
respondent No.2 launched prosecution vide STC No.1 of 2021 on the file of
XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of First Class, Nampally,
Hyderabad. Against the said STC No.1 of 2021, the petitioner filed Criminal
Petition No.1991 of 2021 before this Court seeking to quash the complaint
and the said criminal petition is pending.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed
W.P.No.35582 of 2014 questioning the levy of Cess under the BOCW Cess
Act, 1996, inter alia on the ground that under the A.P. Municipal Tramways
(Construction, Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2008, a Metro Rail shall not
be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority, contending
that the Cess under the BOCW Cess Act, 1996 is in the nature of tax, and
BOCW Welfare Board is a local authority as defined under the General
Clauses Act, 1897. Petitioner advanced an alternative contention in
W.P.No.35582 of 2014 that the HMRL Project being a Railway
Administration, the Central Government will be the "appropriate
Government" as per Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Petitioner, however, does not intend to press the said alternative plea. It is
the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents-Central authorities are
harping on the said alternative plea to clutch on and exercise jurisdiction
over the petitioner and the same is a highhanded and arbitrary action.
Respondent No.2 issued Notice dated 05.03.2021 to respondent No.3-
Contractor alleging that respondent No.3 constitutes a Scheduled
Employment under the Minimum Wages Act and there is a short payment of
wages by respondent No.3 to its employees when Notification Nos.190(E) /
191(E) are applied. In fact, respondent No.3 obtained license under CLRA
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
Act from the State Labour Department and is complying with the
Notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government
for the Schedule of Employment "Contract Labour Act" applicable to it.
Similar notices were issued by respondent No.2 to five other Contractors.
Petitioner sent a detailed letter dated 05.04.2021 to respondent No.2,
replying all the six notices issued by him, reiterating its stand/contention
that the said notices are malicious intimidation after six years and would be
legally impermissible in law. However, respondent No.2, without
considering the facts mentioned in the said Reply, once again harping on the
alternative plea in W.P.No.35582 of 2014, vide letter dated 15.04.2021
stated that the petitioner and its Contractors come under Central Labour
Department and that they shall comply with all the provisions of applicable
enactments in Central sphere which are enforceable by them. Respondent
No.2 proceeded to file Applications, i.e., MW Nos.18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of
2021 against the Contractors and the petitioner herein under Section 20 of
the Minimum Wages Act before respondent No.1 claiming the alleged
differential wages. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a
non-government metro Railway within the meaning of Section 2(1)(l) of the
MROM Act and consequently, it is neither carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government, nor is it a Railway Administration nor
a Corporation established by the Central Government so as to say that the
Central Government is the "appropriate Government" under the Minimum
Wages Act, and therefore the impugned proceedings which are instituted
against the Contractors and the petitioner, alleging differential wages,
applying the Notifications issued by the Central Government, which are not
applicable to the petitioner and its Contractors even remotely, are wholly
without jurisdiction and are liable to be prohibited by this Court by issuance
of Writ of Prohibition. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent
Nos.1, 2, and 5 being subordinate officers of respondent No.4-Deputy Chief
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
Labour Commissioner (Central), the Inspections have been carried on as per
the directives of the respondent No.4 and therefore the exercise is futile and
prejudicial as it is bound by the dictateof respondent No.4. Petitioner
therefore assails the Proceedings instituted under MW Application Nos.18,
20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of 2021, as void ab initio.
3. Heard Mr. C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.
G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioners; Mr. Gadi
Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for
respondent Nos.1,2,4,5 and 8; Mr. Krishna Swamy, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.6. Perused the
record.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, while making
submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would primarily contend that the
petitioner is a non-government Metro Railway under Section 2(1)(l) of the
MROM Act, and it is not carrying out its activities under the authority of
Central Government or Railway Administration and therefore the institution
of proceedings under the impugned MW Applications, seeking payment of
differential wages, is illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that the petitioner
comes under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act, wherein the
"appropriate Government" is the State Government and therefore the
respondent No.1-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) has no authority
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to institute the impugned
proceedings.
Learned Senior Counsel contending that the impugned proceedings
are bound by the dictate of respondent No.4 who is the higher authority and
therefore not impartial, relies on the judgment in Filter Co. v. CST 1. He also
(1986) 2 SCC 103
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
relies on Collector of Customs v. Bava 2, K.S. Venkatraman & Co (P) Ltd. V.
State of Madras 3, to contend that the petitioner raises an important
question of interpretation of statutory provisions and therefore a writ
remedy is the appropriate one, especially when an alternative remedy is an
empty formality as held in Thampu Sugar Mills Ltd. V. State of U.P. 4.
Petitioner also relies on GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd v.
State of A.P. 5wherein this Court, referring to the case in Cochin
International Airport Ltd. V. Regional Labour Commissioner 6, declared
that the State Government is the "appropriate Government" but not the
Central Government under the CLRA Act. Learned Senior Counsel also relies
on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Chennai Metro Rail
Limited 7, and CMRL Employees Union 8, wherein the High Court of Madras
has extensively dealt with the provisions of MRCW Act, MROM Act, and the
ID Act, the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and resolved the conflict between the
Central and State Labour Departments by declaring that the State
Government Labour Department and its authorities are appropriate
Government within the meaning of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act
insofar as Chennai Metro Railway Limited. Learned Senior Counsel further
contends, relying on the judgment of this Court in Group4 Securitas
Guarding Private Limited v. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) 9,
wherein it was held that though the petitioner therein (Group4 Securitas) is
rendering services to the Bank (a Central undertaking), the petitioner is not
amenable to the Central Government jurisdiction and the appropriate
Government for the petitioner is the State Government. Learned Senior
AIR 1968 SC 13
AIR 1966 SC 1089
(2007) 8 SCC 338
2009 (2) KLJ 232
W.P.No.26995 of 2009 (Madras High Court)
W.P.No.12931 of 2019 (Madras High Court)
W.P.No.3198 of 2006 (Telangana & A.P High Court)
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
Counsel further relies on Victor Joseph, Regional Managing Director,
Group4 Securities Guarding Limited v. State 10, wherein it was held that
the Central Government is not the appropriate Government, and thereby the
complaint lodged by the officer of Central Government for alleged violation
of provisions of Section 24 of the CLRA Act, was quashed. Learned Senior
Counsel further relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of Patna High
Court in P.R. Catering v. State of Bihar 11, wherein the Court relied on
Carisbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. P.K. Sarkar 12, and held
that the business of Food and Beverages carried on under the license from
Central Government/Railway Administration for supply at different Railway
Stations on running trains cannot be said to be carried on by the Central
Government or under the authority of the Central Government and
consequently, the complied filed by the Central Government was quashed.
Learned Senior Counsel also relies on M/s East India Commercial Co. Ltd.,
v. Collector of Customs 13, Durvasula Sambamurthy, Formerly Block
Development Officer, Panchayat Samithi, Pithapuram, Now District
Panchayat Officer, Nellore v. The Collector, East Godavari District,
Kakinada 14, N.G. Panga v. The Election Commission, India 15, Filterco v.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh 16.
5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, basing on the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, would primarily contend that
the provisions of Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002
refer only to the Central Government, and therefore the Metro Railway is
functioning only under the control of Central Government. It is contended
2006 (2) LLN 259
2002-I-LLJ-227
AIR 1952 Cal. Page 6
AIR 1962 SC 1893
1979 SCC OnLine AP 86
1970 (2) AnWR 255
(1986) 2 SCC 103
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
that the HMRL Project falls under Metro Railway Administration and under
Section 45 of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, the
Central Government is the appropriate Government for the petitioner. It is
contended that the Central Government is the appropriate Government even
under CLRA Act, and also the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and that even the
petitioner has confirmed in their sworn affidavit in W.P.No.35582 of 2014
before this Court that the appropriate Government is the Central
Government for HMRL. It is stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit
as follows:
"15. In reply to Para 3(i) it is submitted that under Section 43 of
MRCW Act it is very much true that M/s L&T Metro Rail Hyderabad
Ltd has filed a writ petition (Special Original Jurisdiction) before
the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad vide WP No.35582 of 2014 in
which M/s L&T Metro Rail Hyderabad ltd admitted that under
Section 43 of the Act, the provisions of the Indian Railways Act,
1890 are applicable to the works of the Metro Railways under
Section 43 of the MRCW Act."
6. It is further contended by the learned Deputy Solicitor General that
the Indian Railways Act, 1890, is applicable to the works of the Metro
Railways under Section 43 of the Metro Railways (Construction Works) Act,
198 and that the Central Government had extended the MROM Act and
MRCW Act to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad vide Notifications dated
24.01.2012, and therefore the HMRL is under MRCW Act, 1978 and not
under AP Tramways Act, 2008. It is contended that in 2014, no inspection
was carried out and no legal action was initiated as there was no cause of
action in that year to initiate a legal action. It is contended that on
05.03.2021, 09.03.2021, and 10.03.2021, out of 11 listed establishments, the
following six establishments were inspected and observed that the
contractors of the petitioner are not paying the notified minimum wages to
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
workers basedon the records produced, and there is a less payment of
Rs.3,67,78,884/-. It is contended that inspection has been conducted on
02.03.2020 by respondent No.5-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
Hyderabad, and Inspection Report-cum-Show Cause notice dated
03.03.2020 was served by name to Mr. KVB Reddy, MD & CEO of M/s L&T
Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, but as on today, no reply was received from
the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Head Human Resources, submitted a reply
without any power of delegation to sign on behalf of the petitioner on
27.03.2020. The reply was examined and it is found that the reply was
submitted without scrutinizing the existing facts on record, and the
petitioner willfully disobeyed the notices served under CLRA Act, and
therefore issuing subsequent notices does not arise. It is further contended
that the Central Government has extended the MROM Act, and MRCW Act, to
the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad, and the HMRL Project falls under
Metro Railway Administration under MRCW Act, and under Section 43 of
MRCW Act read with Section 184 of the Railways Act, 1989, and further the
petitioner on record admitted that the HMRL Project falls under MRCW Act
and MROM Act. It is also contended that the petitioner has admitted that the
provisions of MRCW Act, Railways Act, 1989 are applicable, as such it is
Metro Railway Administration and hence the Central Government is the
appropriate Government under both the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and therefore the State Government Officials
have no jurisdiction over the HMRL Project. It is contended that the
petitioner, to avoid 1% Cess under the Building and Other Construction
Workers Act, 1996, has admitted that Central Government is the appropriate
Government, and now to avoid payment of minimum wages as per Central
Government, is taking a totally different stand that Central Government is
not the appropriate Government, and the petitioner is adopting double-
standards to suit its convenience with a view to get away with statutory
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
liabilities under labour laws as the minimum wages notified by the Central
Government are higher than the State Government. It is contended that the
Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hyderabad, has conducted inspection
on 02.03.2021 and issued Inspection Report-cum-Show Cause notice to
rectify the violations pointed out in the Inspection Report. It is further
contended, by drawing attention to Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act,
that appropriate Government means:
(i) In relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or
under the authority of the [3] [Central Government, or a
railway administration], or in relation to a mine, oilfield, or
major port, or any corporation established by [4] [a central
Act], the Central Government, and
(ii) In relation to any other scheduled employment, the State
Government;
Learned Deputy Solicitor General draws attention to paragraph 21 of
the counter affidavit of 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated as follows:
"21. In reply to Para 3(q) & (r) it is submitted that Section 2(b) of
the MW Act defines the expression 'appropriate government' as
under:
(b) "appropriate Government means: -
(i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under
the authority of the [3] [Central Government or a railway
administration], or in relation to a mine, oilfield or major port, or
any corporation established by [4] [a Central Act], the Central
Government, and
(ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State
Government;
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
22. It is submitted that as per the above definition, the works
namely Housekeeping, Security and maintenance executed by the
Contractors engaged by M/s L&T Metro Rail Hyderabad Ltd., are
scheduled employments for which Central Government is the
appropriate government and accordingly Minimum rates of wages
have to paid as fixed by the Central Government. It is to submit
that 'railway administration' as per Act it does not mentioned
anywhere about Private Railway or public railway it is only
mentioned as 'railway administration', more over the petitioner
company itself engaged in providing railway services and the
workers are engaged in scheduled employments viz.,
Housekeeping, Security and maintenance. Hence the petitioners
has to pay the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government.
It is contended that the 1st respondent-Authority under the Minimum
Wages Act is independent and appointed by the appropriate Government by
Notification in the Gazette to hear and decide the case, and the power of the
Authority is vested by legislation and the direction of the Authority is final
and the respondent No.4-Deputy Chief Commissioner of Labour is only
administration authority who cannot interfere in the quasi-judicial
functioning of the 1st respondent-Authority. It is contended that the case in
Filter Co. v. CST (supra) is under Sales Tax Act, not connected to the
present case.Learned counsel refers to Section 20 on "Claims" under the
Minimum Wages Act, and submits that the petitioner, without exhausting
the remedy provided under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, filed this
writ petition to deny the statutory minimum wages to the poor workers.
It is contended that the case in GMR Hyderabad International
Airport Limited (supra) is not relevant as it pertains to the appropriate
Government for "Air Transport services", and the present case is of "Railway
administration" for whom the Central Government is the appropriate
Government. It is also contended that Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., (supra)
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
and CMRL Employees (supra) are not relevant to the present case as those
cases are in relation to entertaining disputes of Trade Union, but in the
instant case, the dispute is regarding payment of minimum wages fixed by
the Central Government. It is also contended that the case in Group4
Securitas (supra) and PR Catering (supra) also do not relate to the
present case, and in Carisbad Mineral Water Manufacturing (supra),
which is a case pertaining to appropriate Government for an industry
carried on by or under the Authority of the Government, and in the instant
case the appropriate Government is the Central Government.
Learned Deputy Solicitor General relies on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic 17 to contend that
the Supreme Court held that whenever construction work is being carried
out either departmentally or through contractors, the government or any
other governmental authority including a public sector corporation which is
carrying out such work must take great care to see that the provisions of
Labour laws are strictly observed and they should not wait for any
complaint to be received from workmen in regard to non-observance of any
such provision. It is contended that the petitioner has taken contradictory
versions with regard to the appropriate Government in W.P.No.35582 of
2014, and this writ petition, with a malafide intent to deny the rightful
wages to the labour, and the petitioner is liable for payment of wages as
fixed by the Central Government as the Central Government is the
appropriate Government. It is contended that more than 15000 workers are
directly and adversely affected with their standard of living due to drawing
of less wages than those notified by the Central Government, and therefore
the writ petition has no merit.
1982 AIR 1473
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.6, basing
on the counter affidavit, contendsthat the MRCW Act, 1978 is a Central Act
and the writ petitioner is having claims by depending on the Central Act,
and that the 6th respondent is purely a formal party. It is also contended that
the matter is purely between the petitioner and the Central Government and
there is no involvement of the State Government, and all the documents
relied on by the petitioner pertains to different disputes that do not pertain
to the State Government. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the
State Government reads as follows:
"7. Moreover this respondent is made as party which is purely
formal in nature as such the above writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
8. ....... There is no such involvement of the State Government in
addition of the above exhibits annexed with the writ petition
substantially established that the matter is exclusively pertain to
petitioner and Central Government. Even otherwise the definition
of "appropriate Government" clearly define in the minimum wages
Act under Section 2(1):
"Appropriate Government" means, in relation to
railways, air transport services, mines and oilfields,
the Central Government and in relation to all other
cases, the State Government".
All the documents relying by the writ petitioner is pertains to
different disputes which is not pertains to the State Government
as such the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
8. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the
record, it is pertinent to note that Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, makes it clear that the Central Government is the appropriate
government for employments carried on by or under the authority of the
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
Central Government, railway administration, mines, oilfields, major ports, or
any corporation established by a Central Act. It may be noted that the
Central Government, in the year 2012, issued Notifications vide
S.O.No.153(E) and S.O.No.152(E) extending the provisions of Metro
Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, and the Metro Railways
(Construction of Works) Act, to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad,
thereby placing the HMRL Project under the jurisdiction of the Central
Government. It may be noted that when the Central Government issued
Notification bringing the Metropolitan Area into the fold of MROM Act, and
MRCW Act, the contention of the petitioner that it is a non-government
entity or a private entity becomes irrelevant, as, essentially the authority
whoever is operating the HMRL would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the
Central Government as the MROM Act itself places the HMRL Project under
the jurisdiction of the Central Government. Further, the Concession
Agreement and the A.P. Municipal Tramways Act, 2008 do not override the
applicability of the MROM Act. Further, it is the specific stand of respondent
No.6-State Government that the matter is exclusively between the petitioner
and Central Government. The Gazette Notification dated 24.01.2012 reads
as follows:
Ministry of Urban Development
(Metro Rail Cell)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2012
S.O. 152(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1
of the Metro Railways (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2002 (60 of 2002), the
Central Government after consultation with the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
hereby extend the provisions of the said Act to the metropolitan area of
Hyderabad, as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 2008),
with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
(F.No.K-14011/31/2005-Metro)
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
BIMAL KUJUR, Under Secy
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2012
S.O. 153(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 93) of Section 1
of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978), the Central
Government, after consultation with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, hereby
extend the provisions of the said Act to the metropolitan area of Hyderabad, as
specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority Act, 2008 (Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 2008), with effect
from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
(F.No.K-14011/31/2005-Metro)
BIMAL KUJUR, Under Secy
9. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that a writ remedy is
appropriate in the instant case, on the premise that alternative remedy is an
empty formality, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the 1st
respondent-Authority is a quasi-judicial, independent authority, and the
addressing of correspondence by respondent No.4-Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner, who is the competent authority under the Minimum Wages
Act, cannot be said to prejudice the petitioner's case or unduly influence the
1st respondent.
10. With respect to the judgments relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, it may be noted that in Group4 Securitas
(supra), the petitioner therein was a company established under the A.P.
Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, and it was rendering services to the
Bank, a Central Undertaking. It may be noted that the petitioner's security
services were not brought within the Central jurisdiction. In the instant
case, the petitioner, which is an establishment under the Companies Act, is
entrusted to implement the HMRL Project under the Public Private
Partnership model, and the Central Government by the aforesaid
Notifications extended the applicability of MRCW Act, and MROM Act to the
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad. The Construction Works, and the
Operation and Maintenance aspects essentially include the activities carried
out by the Contractors under the petitioner, thereby the Notification has an
overarching effect, bringing within its realm the issues touching upon those
services, which include payment of minimum wages. The interpretation of
appropriate Government under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, draws inference
and conclusion from the Acts operating on the establishment. The instant
case stands on a different footing than the one in Group4 Securitas (supra).
11. Similarly in Cochin International Airport Ltd (supra), the point
that clinched the issue of "appropriate Government" is whether the Air
Transport license that was granted by the State Government was capable of
revocation, and if it is revoked then alone it could seek registration of the
establishment with the registering authority under Central Government. In
the instant case, it is the specific plea of the respondent-authorities that
upon issuance of Central Government Notification, the Central Government
authorities have communicated to the petitioner to obtain necessary
registrations and licenses from the Central Government, and it has been the
consistent stand of the State Government that the issue is between the
petitioner and the Central Government. The petitioner abstained from
obtaining necessary registration on the premise that it is complying with the
statutory labour laws of the State Government. It may be noted that the
petitioner, on the one hand, took shelter claiming jurisdiction of Central
Government in the face of proceedings under BOCW Act in WP No.35582 of
2014, and thereafter disowns its own stand in these writ petitions.
Petitioner is estopped from raising contradictory pleas with regard to the
same point in two separate proceedings.
12. In the case in CMRL Employees Union (supra), the High Court of
Madras held that the Special Act enacted to deal with Metro Railways alone
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
will prevail over other Statutes, however further held that considering the
administration set up as well as entire functioning of project, the State
Government Authorities be construed as appropriate Government. The case
in CMRL is distinguishable from the present case as the petitioner, though
engaged for implementation of HMRL project by the State Government in
the initial stages, during the construction stage, the Central Government
issued Notifications extending the MROM Act, and MRCW Act to the
Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad, and therefore it cannot be said that the
petitioner is not bound by the minimum wages fixed by the Central
Government.
13. The case in East India Commercial Co. Ltd (supra) relates to
payment of customs duty. The cases in Durvasula Sambamurthy (supra)
relating to the issue of Date of Birth, and N.G. Panga (supra) relating to
disqualification in Elections under Article 103 of the Constitution and the
vires of an act done with assumed jurisdiction; and the case in Filterco
(supra) relating to eligibility for exemption of Sales Tax on woolen cloth
manufactured by the petitioner therein, are distinguishable on facts, as, in
the instant case, the matter relates to compliance of law on minimum wages
as per Central enactment.The case-law relied on by the petitioner is
distinguishable both on facts and law. Further, the contention that a writ
remedy is the only appropriate remedy, on the premise of prejudice or
futility of exercise before the 1st respondent, is an unfounded assumption
that is without basis. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any
illegality or impropriety in the impugned Applications instituted before the
1st respondent-Authority.
14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Interim stay, if
any, in these writ petitions stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending,
if any, shall stand closed.
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
_______________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
05th March, 2025
ksm
wp_11221_2022 & batch
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.11221, 11228, 11229, 11235,11238, and
11240 of 2022
05thMarch, 2025
ksm
