PALI DEVI AND ORS.versusCHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR.

A                        PALI DEVI AND ORS.
                                 v.
               CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR.

                               FEBRUARY 15, 1996

B                [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

             Minimum Wages Act, 1948 :

        Ss.2(i), 20(2), 3(}-Employees of Anny School-<Jlievance before the
C authority that the School had not paid them the minimum wages fu:ed by the
  State Government from time to time-Autholity allowing the applica-
  tion-High Cowt setting aside that order on the ground that past employees
                                                                                 .
  are not included in the definition 'employee'-On appeal, held, these two
  provisions read with the Rules and Fann VI lean in favour of the view that
  both past and present employees are entitled to move in the matter.
D
          Municipal Committee, Raikot v. Sham Lal Kaura & Ors. Vol. 28
    (1965-66); Mahiya v. State of H01yana & Ors., (1982) 1 SLR 26 and
    U:,akefield Estate v. P.L. Pernmal, (1958) 16 FJR, disapproved.

          Murngan Transpotts v. P Rathaklinshnan & Ors., (1960) 19 FJR 355;
E   Chacko v. Varkey and Ors., (1961) 21FJR493; Labour Enforcement Officer
    (Central) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Auth01ity under the Mini-
    mum Wages Act, Patna and Ors., (1976) ILR-Pat. Series, 318 and Athni
    Municipality v. Shetteppa Laxman Patton and Ors., (1965) Vol. 2 LW 307,
    approved.
F
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3841-43
    of 1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.94 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 5691, 92/94 and 5877 of 1994.
G
             Aman Hingorani for M/s. Hingorani & Associates for the Appel-
    lants.

             Ourdeep Singh.and Prem Malhotra, for the Respondents.

H            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                         752
              PALI DEVI v. CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITIEE                      753

          The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the writ petition of A
    the respondent Managing Committee of the Army School, Jalandhar;
    upsetting the orders of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
    on the premise that the appellants seeking relief were its ex-employees and
    not existing ones, and hence dis-entitled to move a petition under Section
    20(2) of the Act for appropriate relief.
                                                                                   B
          The employees voiced grievance before the Authority that the Army
    School had not paid them the minimum wages fixed by the State Govern-
    ment from time to time, as per details given in the application, and
    therefore they are entitled to reliefs enumerated under Section 20(2) of the
    above said Act. The said provision reads as under :                            C
            20(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to
            in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner
            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 D
            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 :
                                                                                   E
            Provided further that any application may be admitted after the
            said period of six months when the applicant satisfied the Authority
            that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within
            such period.

    The word 'employee' as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act is as follows :      F

            In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or
            content:

            "2(i) "employee" means any person who is employed for hire or
            reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in G
            a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of
            wages have been fixed;, and includes an out-worker to whom any

-           articles or materials are given out by another person to be made
            up, cleaned, washed, altered,ornamented, finished, repaired,
            adapted or otherwise processes for sale for the purposes of the H
    754                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A             trade or busine..;s of that other person where the process is to be
              carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other
              premises not being premises under the control and management
              of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to
              be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not
              include any member of the Armed Forces of the (Union)."
B
           The High Court relying on an earlier Division Bench decision of the
    Punjab High Court in Municipal Committee, Raikot v. Sham Lal Kaura &
    Ors., [Volume 28 (1965-66). Indian factories Journal 472) took the view that
    the word 'employee', defined in Section 2(1) of the Act did not include an
C   ex- employee. It was held in the said case that a person who is not in the
    actual employment of the employer at the time of making an application
    under section 20(2) of the Act, was not entitled to seek relief. Another
    Single Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mahiya
    v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1982) 1 Service Law Reporter 26) in line with
    the decision of M.C. Raikot's case was taken in aid, to conclude that in the
D   presence of these binding precedents the writ petition merited acceptance
    and on that basis the orders of the Authority was set aside. This has given
    rise to these special leave petitions:

           We grant special leave and dispose of the appeal simultaneously.
E         Section 30 of the Act· confer on the appropriate government power
    to make rules. The 'Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 framed by the
    Central Government prescribe Forms wherein particulars to be mentioned
    in the application for seeking relief are provided. Form VI for the purpose
    of Section 20(2), so far relevant provides :
                                                                                                    -
F
              "The applicant above-named states as follows :

              (1) The applicant was/has been employed from ...........•......... to
    ......................... as ........... (Category) in ................... (establishment) of
    Shri/Messrs.......................... engaged in .............. (nature of work) which is
G   a scheduled employment within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Mini-
    mum Wages Act.

          (2) The opponent(s) is/are the employer(s) within the meaning of
    section 2(a) of Minimum Wages Act                                                               -
H          (3) (a) The applicant has been paid wages at less than the minimum
             PALI DEVI v. CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITfEE                                           755

rate of wages fixed for his category of employment under the Act by A
Rs ........................... per day for the period from ....................... to ................... ;

     (b) The applicant has not been paid wages at Rs ............ per day for
weekly days of rest from .................. to ..... ;

      (c) The applicant has not been paid wages at the overtime rate for                                B
the period from .............................. to ......... ;"

     It is plain that paragraph one of the Form equates the past and the
present as an alternative. It obviously establishes the right of an ex-
employee to move a petition under Section 20(2) of the Act. This Form                                   C
was introduced in the Rules by Notification No. GSR 1301 dated
28.10.1960. The statutory language employed in the Form is a good hint to
discern the true scope of Section 20(2) to determine whether a past
employee can invoke the provisions of the Act or not.

      In Wakefield Estate v. P.L. Penunal, (1958] 16 FJR 1 a learned Single D
Judge of the Madras High Court took the view that since Section 20 of the
Act speaks only of employees and does not speak of past employees and
since the word 'employee' is defined as a person who is employed, it must
be held that the summary remedy provided by Section 20 is not available
to past employees. This was the literal construction of Section 20(2) of the E
Act. Another learned Single Judge of the same High Court in Murugan
Transports v. P. Rathakrishnan & Ors., (1960) 19 FJR 355 differed from
the earlier view and held that in order to give full effect to the intendment
of the Act, it would be necessary to bring within its fold, not merely the
present, but also the past employee,who at one time being employee had
earned the minimum wages. The latter view of the Madras High Court in F
Murugan Transport's case was followed by the Kerala High Court in Chacko
v. Varkey and Others, (1961) 21 FJR 493 holding that even an ex employee
or employees would be competent to file an application claiming relief
under section 20 of the Act.

       In Raikot' case, the Punjab High Court however preferred the earlier G
view of the Madras High Court in Wakefield' Estate's case opting for the
literal construction. Had the existence of the Rules and Form VI been
brought to the notice of the Division Bench, perhaps the interpretation
would have been different. M.C. Raikot's case arose after retrenchment of
an employee with effect from April 7, 1961 and on his filing an application H
    756                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A   under Section 20(2) of the Act, when the Rules and Form VI had become
    operative with effect from 28.10.1960. The language of the form, covering
    the cases of past and existing employees, was in accord not only with the
    latter view of the Madras High Court and the Kerala High Court but also
    with the view of the Patna High Court in Labour Enforcement Officer
    (Central) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court._and Authority under the Mini-
B   mum wages Act, Patna and Others, (1976) ILR - Patna Series, 318, and the
    High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in Athni Municipality v. Shetteppa
    Laxman Patlan and Others, (1965) Volume 2 LLJ 307. Thus on account of
    the preponderance of authority, Sections 20(2) and 2(i) had to be read
    alongwith the Rules and Form VI to lean in favour of the view that both
c   past and present employees were entitled to move in the matter. Such
    would be a purposive approach, which would carry out the necessary              ,
    intendment of the Statute, for which the rules and the Form lend a hand
    to carry out the objectives of the Act. The language employed therein, even
    though executive voiced, is more often than not, demonstrative of the
D   legislative purpose. So viewed, the intendment of the statute is furthered if
    in ex-employee too is held entitled to seek relief under Section 20(2) of the
    Act.

          Thus on the afore-analysis, we allow these appeals, set aside the
    impugned order of the High Court and remit the matters back to it for
E   decision on other points, which allegedly arose in the matter, as asserted
    by learned counsel for the respondent Army school. We have otherwise no
    doubt that other points did arise in these matters because the writ petitions
    were virtually First Appeals in disguise, since the orders of the Authority
    under the Minimum Wages Act were neither appealable nor revisable in
    any other fora. The High Court should now dispose of these remitted
F   matters most expeditiously. Any interim orders which prevailed in the High
    Court during the pendency of the writ petitions would automatically stand
    revived.

          Ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
G G.N.                                                         Appeals allowed.