1. Challenge to administrative orders directing payment of full minimum wages to sub-normal workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — Jurisdiction of civil courts. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I. AND G.K. MITTER, J.
The Pabbojan Tea Co., Ltd. etc., Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner. Lakhimpur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 288 to 291 of 1966,
D/- 18-8-1967. 272
Advocates Appeared
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, with him), for Appellants (In all the Appeals); Mr. H. R. Gokhale, Senior Advocate (M/s. Naunit Lal and B. P. Singh, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In all the Appeals).
Advocates:
B.P.SINGH, H.R.GOKHALE, NAUNIT LAL, P.K.GOSWAMI, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN
B.P.SINGH, H.R.GOKHALE, NAUNIT LAL, P.K.GOSWAMI, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN
Civil court jurisdiction is not barred when challenging the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to a specific class of workers, especially if no appellate remedy exists. "Ordinary unskilled labour" refers to those capable of working a full normal day; sub-normal workers are not entitled to full minimum wages.
Headnote:(A) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sections 15, 20, 24, 26 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be readily inferred and must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied (Para 7). Where a statute creates a special right or liability and provides for determination by special tribunals, the adequacy of alternative remedies is a key consideration (Para 12). A provision stating that directions of an authority are "final" does not necessarily exclude civil court jurisdiction, especially when the challenge pertains to the applicability of the Act to a specific class of workers and no provision for appeal or revision exists (Paras 13, 15).
(B) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 15 - "Ordinary unskilled labour" - The term "ordinary" signifies "usual, not exceptional," meaning labour prepared to work and working in the ordinary way (Para 16). Workers incapable of performing a full normal working day's task due to old age, infirmity, or physical defects do not fall within the category of "ordinary unskilled labour" and are not entitled to full minimum wages under the proviso to Section 15 (Para 16).
(C) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 24 - Bar of suits - The express bar on suits for recovery of wages is intended to protect employees from being driven to file suits for deficit wages, but it does not bar an employer from instituting a suit to challenge an order requiring payment to persons not governed by the relevant notification (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
A notification fixed minimum wages for "ordinary unskilled labour" in tea plantations. An authority ordered tea estates to pay the difference in wages and compensation to sub-normal workers who worked only half-days due to age or infirmity. The tea estates challenged these orders in a civil court, seeking a declaration that the workers were not entitled to full minimum wages without performing a normal day's task.
Findings of Court:
The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the Act did not expressly bar such actions by employers, particularly since no alternative remedy of appeal or revision existed and the authority failed to conduct a proper inquiry. Furthermore, sub-normal workers are not "ordinary unskilled labour" and thus not entitled to full minimum wages if they cannot work a full day.
Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging the orders of an authority under the Minimum Wages Act, and whether sub-normal workers are entitled to full minimum wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the "finality" clause in Section 20(6) does not exclude civil jurisdiction when the challenge is about the Act's applicability to a class of workers, especially in the absence of appellate remedies. It further ruled that "ordinary unskilled labour" implies those capable of working a full normal day; hence, those physically unable to do so are not entitled to the same rate of wages.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the finality of directions under Section 20 and the bar under Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, exclude civil court jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
3. Civil court jurisdiction is not easily excluded; it remains where statutory tribunals violate the Act's provisions or fail to provide a proper hearing. (Para 5 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 )
4. Finality clauses in special statutes do not exclude civil court jurisdiction when the challenge concerns the Act's applicability or the tribunal's failure to follow mandatory procedures. (Para 13 , 15 )
5. Appeals allowed — Administrative orders set aside — Declaration that sub-normal workers are not entitled to full minimum wages without performing normal tasks or hours. (Para 17 )
6. Does a statutory provision stating that a tribunal's direction is final exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts?
Not necessarily. Exclusion must be explicit or clearly implied. Civil courts retain jurisdiction if the tribunal acts in violation of the Act's provisions, abuses its power, or fails to follow fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 15 )
7. Does Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act bar suits filed by employers challenging the applicability of the Act?
No. Section 24 creates an express bar against suits for the recovery of wages by employees to ensure quick relief, but it does not bar employers from challenging orders regarding the Act's applicability. (Para 14 )
8. Are sub-normal workers who cannot work a full normal day entitled to full minimum wages as ordinary unskilled labour?
No. Ordinary unskilled labour refers to those prepared to work in the ordinary way. Workers unable or unwilling to work a full day due to physical incapacity fall under the proviso to Section 15 and are not entitled to full wages. (Para 16 )
Judgement
MITTER, J. : The central question in these appeals is, whether the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits and grant the reliefs claimed.
2. The facts are as follows :- By a notification dated March 11, 1952 the Governor of Assam fixed the minimum wages which were to come into force with effect from March 30, 1952, consisting of basic wages and dearness allowance in terms of cl. (i), sub-s. (1) of S. 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at the rates specified in the Schedule to the notification payable to the employees employed in Tea plantations in the different districts of Assam. Under the notification, the rates were to l, exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workers in respect of supplies of food-stuff and other essential commodities and amenities which were to continue unaffected. Further the existing tasks and hours of work were to continue until further orders. The Schedule shows that the notification was to apply to "ordinary unskilled labour" which was again sub-divided into three classes, namely, (a) adult male (16 years and above), (b) adult and female (16 years and above) and (c) working children (below 16 years and above 12 years). The rates were again to be different in the different districts of Assam which were broadly speaking, divided into three Sections. On April 16, 1952 the Government of Assam published the Minimum Wage Rules which fixed the number of hours in the case of an adult for a normal working day to nine hours, subject to a maximum of 48 hours in a week. On June 2, 1953 the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur served a notice on the manager of one of the appellants, Borhapjan Tea Estate to the effect that the minimum wages prescribed had not been paid to a member of employees in accordance with the prescribed rate. The addressee was required to pay the outstanding amount of wages with the requisite amount of delayed compensation to the employees in conformity with Section 20 (3) of the Minimum Wages Act and report compliance on or before the 10th of June, 1953. The manager was further directed to show cause why prosecution should not be sanctioned for violation of the provisions of the said Act. A list of the employees with their names was given showing 24 men labourers, 58 women labourers and one girl labourer. Similar notices were issued to the managers of the other tea estates. The managers submitted written replies to the authority denying liability for payment of the amount claimed in the notice. By order dated June 2, 1954 the above mentioned authority directed the different tea estates to pay the difference between the full minimum wages and the amounts actually paid to the labourers. It does not appear that the authority concerned held any inquiry or received any evidence beyond meeting the managers of the four tea estates at the premises of the Doom-Dooma Club where the Government Labour Officer was also present. He however recorded an order dated June 2, 1954 to the effect that the contention of the managements of the tea estates that the Lettera Challans who by reason of their old age, infirmity and physical defects etc. were incapable of performing a full normal working day s work could not be accepted. According to the order, "the point for decision was, whether a Lettera Challan worker was entitled to the same rate of wages as ordinary labour working full normal working days" From the order, it appears that the authority concerned knew of the employment of this kind of sub-normal workers by various tea estates but he held that, in the absence of an order for exemption by the Government in terms of Section 26 of the Minimum Wages Act, he had to guide himself by the notification mentioned. He held further that under the Act and the Rules, Lettera Challan labour, in spite of the amount of work (time or task rate) performed by them was to be treated as ordinary labour entitled to wages for a full normal day. He therefore directed that the tea estates should pay the diffe
