IMPORTANT POINT
Where a service provided by an establishment did not form part of scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule of Minimum Wages Act, Provisions of the Act would not be attracted.

Headnote:The Minimum Wages Act, 1948—Section 2(g)—Scheduled employment—Specified establishments—Statute cannot be extended to those but intended to be covered by the statute—Appellant’s establishment was providing security personnels to various organisations—Order passed by Authority under the Act against appellant—Writ challenging the order on ground that appellant’s establishment was not a scheduled employment as detailed in Schedule to the Act and no specific notification was issued in that behalf—Writ petitions were allowed but respondent, as principal employer was directed to pay Rs. 1 lac as ex-gratia to workmen—Division Bench allowed the writ appeal holding that where a person provided labour or services for remuneration which was less than the minimum wages, labour or services fell within scope and ambit of “forced labour”—Appeal—Detective services did not form part of scheduled employment—Single Judge was justified in his view that appellant had no liability to pay minimum wages—Provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act had no relevance in the dispute—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Held : Statute cannot be extended to those not intended to be covered by the Statute concerned. It was, however, noted that Section 27 enables the State Government to power to add to that part of the Schedule any employment in respect of which it is of the opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the Act.(Para 8)
The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in his view that the appellant-Lingegowd had no liability to pay the minimum wages. The detective services do not form part of the scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule. It was also justified in holding that there was no employee-employer relationship so far as the appellant-Mysore Kirloskar and the concerned workmen are concerned. The Division Bench unfortunately did not address itself to the relevant aspects and referred to the decision in People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 1473) which was rendered on a totally different context. Though the Division Bench referred to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short ‘the Contract Labour Act’), the same has no relevance so far as the present dispute is concerned. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is restored and that of the Division Bench is set aside. It is made clear that Mysore Kirloskar having not challenging learned Single Judge’s order, is required to make the payment, as directed by learned Single Judge. Since the learned Single Judge had held that Lingegowd was not required to pay the minimum wages, as the nature of services rendered by it was not a schedule employment, the question of it having joint and several liability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with Mysore Kirloskar can not arise. The payment shall be made, if not already made, by Mysore Kirloskar within a period of six weeks from today.(Paras 10 to 12)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 5887/1997 and 6105-6107/1997. By the impugned judgment, the order passed by a learned Single Judge was set aside.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows :

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short ‘the Act’), the appellant-Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber (P) Limited (appellant in C.A. No. 4497/2000) (in short ‘Lingegowd’) filed a writ petition praying for setting aside the orders on the ground that since its establishment of providing security personnel to various organization was not a scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Schedule’) and as no specific Notification was issued in that behalf, the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed holding that the workmen of Lingegowd were not entitled to grant of minimum wages. However, taking into account the beneficial nature of the provision, the learned Single Judge directed Mysore Kirloskar Limited, (appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 4495-4498/2000, hereinafter referred to as ‘Mysore Kirloskar’) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ex-gratia to the workmen as the principal employer. The respondent-Chitradurga District Mazdoor Sangha (Regd.) & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mazdoor Sangha’) filed writ appeals contending that the learned Single Judge was not justified in his view regarding non-applicability of the Act to the undertaking of Lingegowd which employed several persons for rendering security services to the principal employer i.e. Mysore Kirloskar. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that where a person provides labour or services to another for remuneration, which is less than the minimum wages, the labour or services provided by him fell within the scope and ambit of the words “forced labour” under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’) and, therefore, the orders passed by the Authority under the Act were not be interfered with. It was further held that since the principal employer’s activities were included in the list of Scheduled employments, under the Schedule to the Act, there was no necessity of issuance of a separate Notification with reference to the employment of security staff procured through Lingegowd. Reliance was placed on several decisions relating to the true essence of the expression “right to life” as appearing in Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. In support of the appeals filed by Lingegowd, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel has submitted that the Division Bench relied upon judgments which have no relevance to the subject matter of dispute. In fact, the learned Single Judge had analysed the basic issues in great detail and had come to the right conclusion that Lingegowd had no liability. It was further submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge was correct except to the extent that it was held that the appellants had joint and several liability along with the principal employer for payment of rupees one lakh to the concerned employees.

4. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel appearing for Mysore Kirloskar adopted the reasoning given by the High Court. There is no appearance on behalf of the Sangh.

5. This Court had occasion to deal with the question regarding the specified establishments. In Madhya Pradesh Mineral Industry Association v. The Regional Labour Commission, Jabalpur and Ors. (1960 (3) SCR 476), it was observed as follows :

“Before dealing with the vires of the impugned notification it would be material to examine the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act has been passed to provide for minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 2(b) defines the appropriate government as meaning, inter alia (1) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 446

IMPORTANT POINTWhere a service provided by an establishment did not form part of scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule of Minimum Wages Act, Provisions of the Act would not be attracted.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a service provided by an establishment did not form part of scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule of Minimum Wages Act, Provisions of the Act would not be attracted.