Supreme Court of India
MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD.versusCHAND LAL SAHA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 336
- Decided
- 1 November 1990
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- T K THOMMEN
Holding
The cash value of grain concessions and attendance bonuses cannot be treated as wages in kind or included in the minimum wage unless authorized by a notification under Section 11(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, and the Labour Courts were correctly vested with jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) to award the deficit wages.
Summary
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. paid its mine workers a cash wage, an attendance bonus and supplied grain at concessional rates. The workers claimed that the cash value of the grain concession and the attendance bonus were being deducted from their statutory minimum wages fixed by a government notification, and filed applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the deficit amount. The employer argued that the notification made the minimum wage "all‑inclusive" and that the grain and bonus formed part of the wage, and further contended that the Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction because Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act should apply. The Supreme Court held that, absent a specific notification under Section 11(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, the cash value of grain concessions and attendance bonuses cannot be treated as wages in kind or included in the minimum wage, and that the Labour Courts were correctly empowered to entertain the claims under Section 33C(2). Consequently, the Court ordered the employer to pay the deducted amounts with interest and dismissed the appeals. The judgment was also extended to workers in Madhya Pradesh under the Court’s Article 142 powers.
Issues considered
- The monetary value of grain supplied at concessional rates and attendance bonus can be counted towards the minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
- Whether such benefits constitute "wages" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act.
- Whether the Labour Courts had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 given the provisions of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act.
- Whether an all‑inclusive wage notification overrides the requirement of a Section 11(3) notification for wages in kind.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 33C(2)
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948s. 11, s. 2(h), s. 3(1)(a), s. 4
- Payment of Wages Act, 1936s. 15(1)
Subjects
minimum wageswages in kindgrain concessionattendance bonusIndustrial Disputes ActLabour Court jurisdictionSection 11 notificationSection 20public sector undertakingsall‑inclusive wage
Judgment
MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD.
A
v.
CHAND! LAL SAHA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 1, 1990
[T.K. THOMMEN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] B
Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Sections 2(h), 3( l)(a), 4 & 11.
Manganese Mines-Workers-Minimum Wage-Monetary value of
grain supplied at concessional rates and amount paid as actendance
bonus t~ ·workers-Whether can be treated as wage in kind and
deducted from the minimum wages.
c
'Grain concession' and 'Attendance bonus'-Nature. of-Diffe- .
rence between incentive bonus and Minimum wage explained. ·
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33C(2): Labour Court_;_
Jurisdiction of-Application for recovery of deficit amount of minimum D
wages-Whether barred by section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act,·
1948.
The Government of India by a notification issued under the
Minimum ,Wages Act, ~948 fixed the minimum rates of wages 'payable
'" to different categories of employees of the Managese Mines. The appel~ E
lant Company was paying minimum wages to its workers. Besides it was
also paying to its employees attendance bonus and was supplying grain ·
1
to them at concessional rates. Bnt the appellant was dedncting out of
their wages the monetary value of the grain concession" and the atten;
dance· bonus .. The workers of the appell~t Company' working at ,
Nagpur (Maharashtra) and Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) filed applies· · F
!ions under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the.
Labour .Courts at Nagpur and.at Jabalpur for recovery of the defi~it
amount of wages due to them from the appellant. The appellant
opposed ·the applications on the ground that the. minimnin wage wa8 ~n ·
inclusive wage whicli included the cash value of grain conc~ssion and '
attendance bonns. ' · " G
'· The Labour Court, Nagpur, allowed the applications of lb~ workers ·
by holding that the monetary valne of the grain Sllpplied.~t concessibnal,,·
rate or the amount paid as attendance bonus could not be counted
towards the minimum wage .. But the Labour Conrt,. Jabalpur partly
_;i- all,oweit the applications of the workers and decided the issue regarding H
533
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A the supply of concessional grain against the workmen by holding that
the appellant was entitled to add the cash value of the graln-ronces-
sional for computing the minimum wage. The workmen did not
challenge the order of the Labour Court, Jabalpur but the appellant
challenged the orders of both the Labonr Courts by fdlng writ petitions
In the High Court of Bombay and Madhya Pradesh. Both the High
B Courts dismissed the writ petitions.
In appeals to this Court, it was contended on behillf of the appel-
lants; (I) that the notification fixlng!Dinimum·wage being all inclusive it
would include the amount of bonus attendance and the monetary value
of concessional grain; (Ii) since the grain concession and attendance
bonus were benefits which could be computed in money they were
C remuneration within the definition of 'wages' under section 2(h) of the
Act; and (iii) in view of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under
section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to proceed with the
applications for recovery of deficit amount of minimum wages.
D
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. Section U(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 lays
down that the minimum wages payable under the Act shall be paid in ,.
cash. Sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 11 are exceptions to the mandate
E contained in section 11(1). Section 4(1)(iii) and section 4(2) have to be
read with section 11 of the Act. Section 4(1)(iii) mentions only such
"cash value of the concession" as has been authorised "wages in kind"
under sub-6ection (3) of section 11 of the Act. Therefore, there cannot
be a wage In kind unless there is a notification by the appropriate
Government under section 11(3) of the Act. It Is only the appropriate
F Government which can autltorise wages partly in kind, In the absence
of any notification by the appropriate Govt. for the supply of essential
commodities at concessional rates the cash value of such concessions
cannot be treated as wage in kind and cannot be deducted from the
minimum wages which have to be paid in cash under section 11(1) ofthe
Act. In the instant case there being no notification by appropriate
G Government under section 11(3) of the Act the appellant cannot take
advantage from para 2 of the notification or from provisions of section
4(1)(iii) of the Act.
2. The scheme of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 recognises
"wages" as defined under section 2(h) and also "wages in kind" under
H section 11 of the Act. Reading both the provisions together "wages in
MANGANESE ORE v. C.L. SAHA 535
kind" can only become part of the wages if the conditions provided
A
nnder sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 11 of the Act are ·complied
with. Since there was no notification by the Central Govermnent nnder ·
section 11(3) of the Act the supply of grain at a concessional rate cannot
be considered "wages" under section 2(b) oftbe Act.
2.1. The managements of public sector undertakings which are B
bound by Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined under. Part i;v
of the Constitution must endeavour to secure for their workmen apart
from "wages" other amenities also. These amenities may be. capable of
being expressed in terms of money but it is clear from the scheme of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 that these concessions do not. come within
the meaning of "wages" under section 2(h) of the Act. The supply of
grain at concessional rate to the workers is in the nature of an amenity c
or an additional facility /service and cannot be included in the rates of
wages prescribed by the notification.
2.2. There is a basic difference between the incentive bonus and
the minimum wage. Every workman is entitled to minimum wage from D
the very first day of his joining the employment whereas the bonus has
to be earned and it becomes payable after the event. In the instant case
the attendance bonus was payable after regular attendance for a
specified period and remaining loyal to the management. The scheme of
payment of attendance bonus was thus an incentive to secure regular
attendance of the workmen. It was an additional ·payment made to the E.
workmen as a means of increasing production. Therefore, the atten-
dance bonus is in the nature of an incentive and it cannot be treated as
part of minimum wages under the Act.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959] S.C.R.
Snppl. (2) 1012; followed. F
3. The Minimum Wages Act is concerned with the fixing of rates
of minimum wages. Under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act in
which provision is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising
out of payment of less than minimum rates the Authority is to exercise
jnrisdiction for deciding claims which relate to rates of wages. The G
power under section 20(3) of the Act given to the Authority dealing with
an application under section 20(1) to direct payment of the actual
amount found due, is only an incidental power for working out effec-
tively the directions under section 20(1) fixing various rates under the
Act. That is, if there is no dispute as to rates ~tween the employer and
the employee and the only question Is whether a particular paymentiit H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A the agreed rate is due or not, then s. 20(1) of the Act would not be
attracted at all, and the appropriate remedy would only be either under
s; 15(1) of the payment of Wages Act or under section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
3.1. In the instant case there was no dispute regarding the rates
B of wages and It is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of
wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The work-
men demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied
the same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. Under the
circumstances the remedy under section 20 of the Act was not avallable
to the workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction
C under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Hubli & Ors., [1970) l S.C.R. 51; followed. ·
[Notwithstanding the fact that the order of the Labour Court
D Jabalpur became rmal, the Supreme Court Invoked Its powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed that the benefit of
this judgment be extended to the workmen of the appellant In the State
of Madhya Pradesh.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
E lS(L) &· 16(1) of 197.,.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1835 of 1978.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 24th April, 1978 and 19th
F April, .1978 of the Bombay High Court and Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 678/72, 1387 of 1973 and 347
of 1971"respectively.
G.S. Sanghi, A.K. Sanghi and S.V. Natu for the Appellant.
G M.S. Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. The Government of India by a notification
dated May 19, 1969 issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
H (hereinafter called 'The Act') fixed the minimum rates of wages pay-
MANGANESE ORE '· C.L. SAHA [KULDIP SINGH, J.J 537
able to different categories of employees employed in Manganese
Mines. The minimum rate of wage in respect of the unskilled workers A
was fixed at Rs.2.40 per day. The management, under an agreement,
was paying to the employees attendance bonus and was supplying
grain to them at concessional rates.
The question for our consideration is whether the monetary B
value of the grain supplied at concessional rates and the amount paid
as attendance bonus can be included and counted into the minimum
wages payable to the employees under the abovesaid notification.
Nathu Purnia and 25 other workmen employed with Manganese
Ore (India) Ltd., Nagpur filed two applications under section 33-C(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Government C
labour court at Nagpur for recovery of the deficit amount of wages due
to them from the management. According to them, unskilled and
semi-skilled workers were entitled to Rs.2.40 and Rs.3.20 per day as
minimum wages, but the management was illegally deducting out of
their wages the cash value of various benefits and amenities such as D
attendance-bonus and concessional supply of food grains to them. The
management opposed the applications before the labour court on the
ground that the minimum wage was an all inclusive wage which
included the cash value of all benefits such as food grains supplied at
concessional rates, bonus and various other amenities extended to the
workmen. According to the management, the workmen were being E
paid wages in cash as well as in kind and the money value of those
benefits was to be taken into consideration while computing the
minimum wage. The labour court rejected the contention of the
management and allowed the applications of the workmen. The labour
court came to the conclusion that the monetary value of the grain
supplied at concessional rate or ·the amount paid as attendence bonus :p
could not be co.unted towards the minimum rates of wages payable to
the workmen under the notification.
Chan di Lal, a Sweeper working with the Managanese Ore
(India) Ltd., Nagpur also filed an application under Section 33-C(2)
before the Central Government labour court at Nagpur claiming the G
same relief as was being asked by Nathu Purnia and others. The
management resisted the claim on similar grounds and also raised an
additional ground to the effect that he was a domestic servant working
~,), in the bungalow of Mechanical Engineer and as such was not an
employee of the management. T.he labour court rejected all the con-
tentions raised by the management and altowed the application of H
Chandi Lal. ·
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
The management challenged the abovesaid orders of the labour
A court by way of two writ petitions under article 226/227 of the Con-
stitution of India before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.
The High Court by its judgment dated April 24, 1978 dismissed the
Writ Petitions. Civil Appeals Nos. 15(L) and 16(L) of 1979 by the
management, via special leave, are against the High Court judgment.
B
Madho and 9 other workmen of the appellant management, who
were working at Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh filed 10 applications
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the
Labour Court at Jabalpur seeking the same relief as was sought by
Nathu Purnia and others from Labour Court at Nagpur. The labour
court, Jabalpur, while partly allowing the applications decided the
c issue regarding the supply of grain at concessional rates, against the
workmen. It was held that the management was entitled to add the
cash value of the grain supplied to the workmen at concessional rates
for computing the minimum wage. The workmen did not challenge the
order of the labour court on the issue before the High Courl or any
D other authority. The management, however, filed writ petition under
article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh
High Court challengin~ the order of the labour court, Jabaipur, to the
extent the said order went against the management. The High Court
by its order dated April 19, 1978 dismissed the writ petition. Civil
Appeal No. 1835 of 1978 by the management is against the abovesaid
E judgment of the High Court.
It is thus obvious that the workmen employed with the appellant
at Nagpur (Maharashtra) won from the labour court, Nagpur on all the
points whereas the workmen employed with the appellant in the State
of Madhya Pradesh lost before the labour court, Jabalpur on one issue
F as indicated above. The adverse order of the labour court, Jabalpur,
was not challenged before any authority and as such the same has
become final. The net result is that the workmen employed with the
management in Maharashtra are getting the minimum wages without
any deductions whereas the workmen employed with the same
management in the State of Madhya Pradesh are being paid the
G minimum wages after deducting the money value of the concessional
supply of grain to them.
Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior advocate appearing for the
appellant has raised the following points for consideration:
Ii ( 1) The notification fixing the minimum wage specifically
MANGANESE ORE v. C. L. SAHA [KULDJP SINGH, J.] 539
mentions that the minimum rates of wages are all inclusive
rates. According to Mr. Sanghi, the wages so fixed would A
include the amount paid by the management towards the
attendance-bonus as well as the monetary benefit of the
grain concession.
(2) The grain concession and the attendance-bonus are the B
benefits which can be computed in money and as such are
part of the minimum wage under the Act.
(3) The procedure to recover wages fixed under the Act
has been provided under the said Act. Since Section 20 of
the Act provides for elaborate machinery to get the grie-
vances redressed under the Act, the labour court has no c
jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industral Dis-
putes Act to entertain the application.
Before we deal with the points, we may reproduce Section 2(h),
3( I)(a), 4 and 11 of the Act which are relevant. D
2(h): "wages" means all remuneration, capable of being
expressed in terms _of money which would if the terms of the
contract of employment express or implied, were fulfilled,
be payable to a person employed in respect of his employ-
ment or of work done in such employment* (and includes E
house rent allowance) but does not include,-(i) the value
o_f-{a) any house-accommodation, supply of light, water,
medical attendence; or (b) any other amenity or any
service excluded by general or special order of the
appropriate government; (ii) any contribution paid by·the
employer tO" any Pension Fund or Provident Fund .cir any F
scheme of social insurance; (iii) any travelling allowance or
the value of any travelling allowance or the value of any
travelling concession; (iv) any sum paid to the person emp-
loyed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the
·nature of his employment; or (v) any gratuity payable on
discharge. G
3. Fixing of minimum rates of wages-( I) The appropriate
Government, shall, in the manner hereinafter provided-
(a) fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees
employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of
the Schedule and in an employment added to either .part by H
notification under Section 27;
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
S. 4: Minimum rate of wages-( 1) Any minimum rate of
A
wages fixed or revised by the appropriate Government in
respect of Scheduled employments under Section 3 may
consist of-
(i) a basic rate of wages and a special allowance at a rate to
B be adjusted at such intervals and in such manner as the
appropriate Government may direct, accord as nearly as
practicable with the variation in the cost of living index
number applicable to such workers (hereinafter referred to
as the "cost of living allowance"); or
(ii) a basic rate of wages with or without the cost of living
c allowance and the cash value of the concession in respect of
supplies of essential commodities at concession rates,
where as authorised; or (iii) an inclusive rate allowing for
the basic rate, the cost of living allowance and the cash
value of the concessions, if any.
D
(2) The cost of living allowance and the cash value of the
concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities
at concession rates shall be computed by the competent
authority at such intervals and in accordance' with such
directions as may be specified or given by the appropriate
E government.
S. 11: Wi!ges in kind.-( 1) Minimum wages payable under
the Act shall be paid in cash.
(2) Where it has been the custom to pay .wages wholly or
F partly in kind, the appropriate Government being of the
opinion that it is necessary in the circumstances of the case
may, by notification in the Official Gazette authorise the
payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in ki.nd;
(3) If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that
G provisions should be made for the supply of essential com-
modities at concession rates, the appropriate Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette authorise the
provision of such supplies at concession rates.
(4) The cash value of wages in kind and of concession in
H respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession
MANGANESE ORE v. C.L. SAHA [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 541
rates authorised under Sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be A
estimated in the prescribed manner.
We may now consider the first argument of Mr. .sanghi. Section
11( 1) reproduced above lays down that the minimum wages payable
under the Act shall be paid in cash. Sub-section 2 and 3 of Section 11
are exceptions to the mandate contained in Section 11(1). It is clear B
from the scheme of the section that the minimum wages payable under
the Act are to be paid in cash unless there is a notification .in the
Official Gazette to the contrary under Section 11(2) or 11(3) of the
Act. Admittedly, no such notification has been issued by the
appropriate Government in the present case. The supply of essential
commodities at concessional rates can only form part of the minimum c
wage, if it is authorised by the appropriate Government by a notifica-
tion in the Official Gazette under Section 11(3) of the Act.
Mr. Sanghi, however, contended that in view of para 2 of the
notification issued under the Act the compliance of sub-section 3 and 4
of Section 11 was not required. The said para is as under: D
"The minimum rati::s df wages are all-inclusive rates, and
include also the wages for weekly day of rest".
According to Mr. Sanghi, reading para 2 of the notification
alongwith Section 4( l)(iii) of the Act, the minimum rates of wages E
being all inclusive, the management was entitled to deduct from the
minimum wages the cash value of the grain concession. We do not
agree with Mr. Sangh!. Section 4(1)(iii) and Section 4(2) have to be
read with Section 11 of the Act. There cannot be a wage in kind under
the scheme of the Act unless there. is a notification by the appropriate
Government under Section .11(3) of the Act. Section 4(1 )(iii) mentions F
only such "cash value of the concession" as has been authorised "wage
in kind" under sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Act. It is only the
appropriate Government which can authorise the payment of
minimum wages partly in kind. In the absence of any notification by
the appropriate Government for the supply of essential commotlities
at concessional rates the cash value of such concessions cannot be G
treated as wage in. kind and cannot be deducted from the minimum
wages which have to be paid in cash under Sec\ion 11(1) of theAct.
There being no notification by the appropriate Government under
Section 11(3) of the Act, the appellant cannot take any advantage from
~ para 2 of the notification or from the provisions of Section 4( l)(iii) of
the Act. We, therefore, reject the contention raised by Mr. Sanghi. · H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C-.!l.
The second argument of Mr. Sanghi is based on the definition of
A
"Wages" under section 2(h) of the Act. According to him the atten.-
dance bonus and the supply of grain at a concessional rate are the
concessions which are capable of being expressed in terms of money
and as such are remunerations within the definition of "Wages" under
section 2(h) of the Act.
B
The scheme of the Act recognises "Wages" as defined under
section 2(h) and also "wages in kind" under section 11 of the Act.
Reading both the provisions together "wages in kind" can only
become part of the "Wages" if the conditions provided under sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 11 of the Act are complied with.
Admittedly, there was no notification by the Central Government
c under section 11(3) of the Act and as such the supply of grain at a
concessional rate cannot be considered "Wages" under section 2(h) of
the Act. We may examine the question from another angle. The
supply of grain at concessional rate to the workers is in the nature of an
·amenity or an additional facility/service. The management specially of
D public undertakings, are bound by the Directive Principles of the State
policy enshrined under Part IV of the Constitution of India. The workers
must be ensured a living wage, just and human conditions of work and
a decent standard of life. The management must endeavour to secure
for the workmen apart from "Wages" other amenities like supply of
essential commodities at concessional rates, medical aid, housing faci-
E lity, education for children, old age benefits and opportunities for
social, cultural and sports activities. All these amenities may be cap-
able of being expressed in terms of money but it is clear from the
scheme of the Act that these concessions do not come within the
definition of "Wages" as given under Section 2(h) of the Act. We have
thus no hesitation in holding that the supply of grain at a concessional
F rate to the workmen is an amenity and cannot be included in the rates
of wages prescribed by the notification.
As regards th" attendence-bonus it was an additional payment
made to the workmen as a means of procuring their regular attendance
with the ultimate object of increasing production. The bonus was in
G the nature of extra remuneration for regular attendance. The said
bonus was not payable to all the workmen at the time of joining the
employment. It was payable to a workman who had put in continuous
service for a spedfied period and who was loyal to the management.
The attendence bonus was only an incentive and it was not a wage.
There is a basic difference between the incentive bonus and the
H minimum wage. Every workman is entitled to the minimum wage from
MANGANESE ORE v. C.L. SAHA {KULDIP SINGH, J.] 543
the very first day of his joining the employm.ent whereas the bonus has
to be earned and it becomes payable "after the event". In the present
A
case the attendance bonus was payable after regular attendance for a
specified period and remaining Joyal to the management. The scheme
of payment of attendance bonus was thus an incentive to secure regu-
lar attendance of the workmen. It was an additional payment made to
the workmen as a means of incre.asing production. In M/s. Titaghur B
Paper Mills Co .. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R: .1012 this
Court held that the payment of production bonus is in the nature of an
incentive and is in addition to the wages. We are, therefore, of the
view that the attendence bonus is in the nature of an incentive and it
cannot be treated as part of the minimum wages fixed under the Act.
The Third argument of Mr. Sanghi based on the interpretation of c
Section 20 of the Act is again devoid of any force. This precise argu-
ment was considered by this Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani
v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 51
and decided in the following terms:
D
"The Minimum wages Act is concerned with the fixing of
rates-rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for
payment of work on a day of rest and is not intended for
enforcement of payment of wages. Under Section 20(1) of
the Minimum wages Act, in which provision is made for
seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment E
of less than minimum rates, or in respect of remuneration
for days of rest, or for work on such days, or of wages at the
overtime rates, the Authority is to exercise jurisdiction for
deciding claims which relates to rates of wages, rates for
payment for work done on days of rest and overtime rates.
The power under s. 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act given F
to the Authority dealing with an application under s. 20(1)
to direct payment of the actual amount found due, is only
an incidental power for working out effectively the direc-
-; tions under s. 20( 1) fixing various rates under the Act. That
-I is, if there is no dispute as to rates between the employer
and the employee and the only question is whether a G
particular payment at the agreed rate is du.e or not, then
s. 20( 1) of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attracteo
at all, and the appropriate remedy would only be either
under s. 15(1) of the Payment of.Wages Act, 1936, orunder
s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act."
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of
wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages
were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workmen
demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the
same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. Under the cir-
cumstances the remedy under Section 20 of the Act was not available
B to the workmen and the Labour Court rii;htly exercised its jurisdiction
under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
We do not agree with the contentions raised by Mr. Sanghi and
as such find no merit in these appeals. The amount of wages due to the
respondents workmen and to all other workmen similarly situ'ited
c shall be paid within three months from today with 12% interest.
The view which we have taken in these appeals, renders the
order of labour court, Jabalpur, on the issue of concessional supply of
grain, inoperative and non-est. It would be travesty of justice if we do
not extend the benefit of this judgment to the workmen employed with
D the appellant in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Notwithstanding the
order of the labour court which has become final, we invoke our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that
the benefit of this judgment be extended to the workmen of the appel-
lant in the State of Madhya Pradesh. We direct the appellant to refund i..
the amount deducted from the wages of the workmen who were before
E the Labour Court, Jabalpur, and to all other workmen similarly
situated within three months from today with 12% interest.
The appeals are dismissed with costs. We quantify the costs as
Rs.10,000.
T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "minimum wages"Sign in to search