Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 1056
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANAND TRANSPORT and PRINTERS
Versus
SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR
Decided On : October 9, 1998
The minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, are inclusive of the cost of living allowance and dearness allowance, and employers are liable to pay the allowances separately from the wages, even if they are paying higher wages than the minimum wages fixed by the Government.
Headnote:
MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 - SECTION 3(1)(a) - SECTION 3(1)(b) - SECTION 3(2) - SECTION 18 - SECTION 22 - SECTION 26 - MINIMUM WAGES (FIXATION OF RATES OF WAGES IN CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT) RULES, 1950 - RULE 26 - MINIMUM WAGES (KARNATAKA REVISED RATES OF WAGES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN PRINTING INDUSTRY) NOTIFICATION, 1984 - MINIMUM WAGES (KARNATAKA REVISED RATES OF VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE FOR EMPLOYMENT IN PRINTING INDUSTRY) NOTIFICATION, 1986 - PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGES AND VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE - INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATIONS - APPLICABILITY TO EMPLOYERS PAYING HIGHER WAGES - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in the business of transport and printing, challenged the Labour Inspector's notice requiring them to pay the cost of living allowance and dearness allowance to its employees belonging to the categories of printers, feeders, cleaners, and helpers. The appellant contended that they were paying higher wages than the minimum wages fixed by the Government and, therefore, were not liable to pay the allowances.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellant was liable to pay the allowances separately from the wages, even though they were paying higher wages than the minimum wages fixed by the Government. The Court relied on the Minimum Wages (Fixation of Rates of Wages in Certain Employment) Rules, 1950, Rule 26, which provides that the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act shall be inclusive of the cost of living allowance and dearness allowance.
Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to pay the cost of living allowance and dearness allowance to its employees, even though they were paying higher wages than the minimum wages fixed by the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in not examining whether the DA or VDA paid to the employees was a fixed amount or a variable amount that varied with the cost of living index. The Court observed that this investigation could have been conveniently done on the basis of the records maintained by the petitioner and remitted the case back to the Single Judge to decide it afresh.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, and remitted the case back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-6-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court by which the judgment and order dated 18-9-1995 passed by the Single Judge has been upheld and the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The writ petition was filed against the notice issued to the appellant by the Labour Inspector requiring the appellant to pay the cost of living allowance and deamess allowance to its employees belonging to the categories of printers, feeders, cleaners and helpers.
( 3 ) IT was indicated in the writ petition, inter alia, as under:"1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transport and printing at Mysore. In the printing press, it has employed about 71 employees. There are four categories of workmen. They are (7) printers; (2) feeders; (3) cleaners; (4) helpers. The minimum wages paid to the workmen are as follows:
Basic pay
DA
HRA
Total
Printers
Rs. 450
Rs. 336
Rs. 77
Rs. 863
Feeders
Rs. 200
Rs. 336
Rs. 77
Rs. 613
Cleaners
Rs. 145
Rs. 310
Rs. 77
Rs. 582
Helpers
Rs. 115
Rs. 310
Rs. 77
Rs. 502
2. The printing industry has been treated as a schedule industry under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Government of karnataka has fixed the minimum wages for the workmen employed in the printing industry vide Notification No. SWL 75 1 NW 83 dated 25-5- 1984 and variable dearness allowances as per Notification No. SWL 72 lmv 85 dated 17-2-1986. They are as follows: Categories
Basic
VDA
Total
Printers
Rs. 416
Rs. 162 (approx.)
Rs. 578
Feeders
Rs. 377
Rs. 135 (approx.)
Rs. 512
Cleaners
Rs. 285
Rs. 108 (approx.)
Rs. 393
Helpers
Rs. 285
Rs. 100 (approx.)
Rs. 393
3. Some of the printing industries challenged the notification relating to VDA before this Honble Court and the same came to be disposed of recently. This Honble Court has been pleased to direct the employers to pay the variable dearness allowance with effect from 1-4-1985 and that the arrears shall be paid in four equal instalments commencing 1-6-1986. 4. The Senior Labour Inspector who inspected the registers maintained by the firm on 29-5-1986 made observation in the inspection book a photocopy of which is produced at Annexure c which reads as follows: visited and inspected M/s Anand Transport and Printers, printing Section, Vinoba Road, Mysore. 71 workers are employed. Registers are maintained and produced. The following observation is made for immediate rectification and report: (1) The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules thereunder the employer shall pay the revised rates at variable dearness allowance with effect from 1-4-1985. The arrears shall be paid in four equal instalments (monthly) commencing from 1-6-1986 (for the period from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1986 ). From 1-4-1986, it shall be paid in the monthly wage bill. 5. The petitioner immediately furnished his reply dated 5-6-1986, a copy of which is herewith produced at Annexure d inter alia contending that they are not liable to pay the arrears of VDA as well as the VDA from 1-4-1986. Since the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the notifications issued thereunder are not applicable to them, as they are paying higher than the minimum wages fixed by the Government. The 1st respondent even without considering the plea raised by the petitioners, has issued the show-cause notice dated 6-6-1986 vide annexure a calling upon the petitioner as to why they should not be prosecuted in a competent court of law for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. " the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal before it stating thus:"thus, it is clear that under the notification the State has fixed 2 separate categories of minimum rates of wages to be paid to the employees one basic and the other other allowance i. e. DA. It is to be noted that the appellants have not challenged the validity of these notifications and as such the notifications have been accepted b
