Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd. vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 531 Tri

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                            WA 188/2020

 1. Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd., a company within the meaning of
    Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at P.O.
    Sadhanashram, District- Unakoti, Tripura- 799277, being represented
    by Shri Ajoy Malakar, the authorized representative of the petitioner.

                                                       ..........Appellant

                              Versus

 1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Commissioner &
    Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Tripura, having his
    office at New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, P.O. Agartala
    Secretariat, District- West Tripura;

 2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Labour Department, Government
    of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat Complex, Agartala,
    P.O. Agartala Secretariat, District- West Tripura;

 3. The Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Department,
    Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat
    Complex, Agartala, P.O. Agartala Secretariat, District- West Tripura;

 4. The Labour Inspector, Labour Directorate, Government of Tripura,
    having his office at P.O., P.S. & Sub-Division- Kailashahar, District
    Unakoti, Tripura, PIN- 799277;

 5. The Unakoti District Labour Officer, Labour Directorate,
    Government of Tripura, having his office at Kailashahar, P.O., P.S.
    & Sub-Division- Kailashahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura, PIN-
    799277.
                                              .............. Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. P.S. Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s)               : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Date of hearing and
delivery of judgment
and order                       : 20th May, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting       : NO





                                   _B_E_F_O_R_E_

                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. LODH
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
                               Judgment & Order(Oral)

(A. Lodh, J)

Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by

Mr. P.S. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also

heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent.

[2] By means of filing the present writ appeal, the writ petitioner-

appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.09.2019 passed by

the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Justice S. Talapatra) in W.P.(C) No.1095

of 2018.

[3] We have gone through the judgment and order as aforestated at

the time of hearing of this appeal. During the course of hearing, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised four questions in his

attempt to challenge the said judgment which are as under:-

i. The constitution of the committee for revision of the minimum wages of the teagarden workers is contrary to Section 5(1)(a) & (b) read with Section 9 of the said Act;

ii. There were no representatives of the employers i.e. the teagarden owners during the meeting held by the members of the committee; iii. Fixation of minimum wages at Rs.176/- per day for the teagarden workers is unreasonable;

iv. The constitution of the committee was not notified.

[4] We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels

appearing for the appellant. Learned Single Judge held that there is no

illegality in constitution of the committee. We have also perused the

notification notifying the constitution of the committee dated 13 th September

2017 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura. The

main objection to the constitution of the said committee appears to be

inclusion of (1) Shri P.K. Sarkar, Secretary and Labour Advisor, Tea

Association of India, Tripura Branch, Agartala and (2) the Managing

Director, Tripura Tea Development Corporation, Agartala. Both the aforesaid

members had been included as employers' representatives, which according

to learned counsels appearing on behalf of appellant, were contrary to statute,

that, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as they could not be the employers'

representatives having no teagardens with them.

[5] Dealing with these questions, we find that there is no illegality in

including aforesaid two members as employers' representatives because the

Tea Association of India is a body constituted by the owners of the teagardens

and the Managing Director of Tripura Tea Development Corporation looks

after the interest of the teagardens in the State of Tripura which includes the

interest of the owners of the teagardens in Tripura. Furthermore, the appellant

could not make out a case that the aforesaid two members acted in a manner

which was found to be detrimental to the interest of the teagarden owners.

That apart, it is clearly shown in the said notification dated 13 th September,

2017 that the authority concerned had notified it in the official gazette in

terms of Clause-(a) Sub-section- (1) of Section-5 of the Minimum Wages Act,

1948 ( Act 11 of 1948). So, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner-appellant

was unaware of the notification forming the aforesaid committee for revision

of minimum wages for the teagarden workers. As such, raising such claim at a

belated stage and that too, after recommendation and finalization of rate of

wages is unacceptable.

[6] The second question raised by the appellant has already been

answered in the preceding paragraph. Now, dealing with the most crucial

question as raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

that determination of Rs.176/- per day as the minimum wages of the

teagarden workers is unreasonable, we are of the opinion that such

determination has been made after considering the all aspects and after

deliberations between the members of the constituted committee.

[7] After going through the minutes of the meeting, we find that one

of the representatives of the teagarden workers had demanded Rs.300/- per

day as minimum wages of the workers of the teagardens. But to avoid the

disputes between the members of the committee, one of the members of the

committee had proposed to follow the National Floor Level Minimum Wages

rate which was determined @ Rs.176/- per day for the workmen (in this case,

the teagarden workers) and majority of the members of the committee had

agreed to such proposal. Accordingly, said rate was finally notified by the

Government of Tripura, Labour Department through its Notification dated 4 th

January, 2018, which is as under:-

"The revised minimum rates of wages shall come into force with effect from the date of publication.

                                           SCHEDULE
                 Category of employees            Minimum rates of wages per day

             (a) Adult (Male and Female)            Rs.176/- per day.
             (b) Non Adult (Male and Female)        Rs. 88/- per day.

The above rates are not including the value of concessional rated ration and other benefits etc."

[8] As we have already held that there is no illegality and

unreasonableness in the determination of the rate of the minimum wages as

indicated hereinabove for the teagarden workers, we find no merit in the

present writ appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                   JUDGE                                                   JUDGE




  Sabyasachi G