SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(Bom) 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Tarkunde V.M. and Chitale M.G., JJ.
Appellants: Union of India and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: B.D. Rathi and Ors.
Special Civil Appln. No. 1319 of 1961 With Spl. U.A. Nos. 1745 to 1753 of 1961
Decided On: 26.04.1962
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D.S. Parikh, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: P.R. Namjoshi, Adv.

The employer's liability under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is limited to paying the total minimum wages, including overtime wages, as provided by the Act and rules, and the domain of contract is left untouched so long as the total minimum wages are paid.

Headnote:

MINIMUM WAGES ACT - WAGES - OVERTIME WAGES - CONTRACTUAL WAGES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 3(2)(D), 4, 12, 13, 14, 25 - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER - MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948.

Fact of the Case:

Employees of Central Railway claimed overtime wages for working 51 hours a week, alleging that they were entitled to extra wages as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, despite receiving remuneration as per Prescribed Scale of Pay and Hours of Employment Regulations of Central Railway.

Finding of the Court:

The Authority held that the employees were entitled to overtime wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, overruling the Railway's objections that the Act did not apply to them and that Rule 32 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, barred the application of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, applied to the employees of Central Railway, who were governed by the Prescribed Scale of Pay and Hours of Employment Regulations of Central Railway. 2. Whether the employer's liability under Section 12 of the Act was limited to paying the minimum wages fixed under the Act, or if it extended to paying overtime wages at a higher rate as per Rule 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, even if the total wages paid were equal to or more than the minimum wages.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, aims to provide minimum wages to scheduled employees, including overtime wages, and the employer's liability is determined by Section 12, which requires payment of wages not less than the minimum rate fixed by notification under Section 5. 2. The expression "ordinary rate of wages" in Rule 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, means the ordinary minimum rate for normal work fixed under the Act, and not the ordinary contract rate of wages. 3. The employer's liability under Section 12 is limited to paying the total minimum wages, including overtime wages, as provided by the Act and rules, and the domain of contract is left untouched so long as the total minimum wages are paid.

Final Decision: The Court set aside the Authority's order and remanded the cases back to the Authority to determine whether the employees were paid the total minimum wages as provided by the Act, including overtime wages, and if not, to grant them the shortfall.

Judgment

Ghitale, J.

1. These are applications against the decision by he Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Authority), on applications submitted by several employees of he Central Railway. The employees applied to the Authority alleging that they worked for 51 hours a week, although according to the provisions and rules framed under the said Act they were required to work only for 48 hours during a week; thus they have worked overtime for three hours per week, and hence they were entitled to extra wages payable as per rules framed under the said Act for the overtime work done by tem during the period beginning with 1-4-1952 upto the date of the applications. It is common ground that the employees are monthly rated employees, and that they are workers in a scheduled employment.

2. These applications were opposed by the Central Railway on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain claims prior to 1957, and that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was not applicable to the employees-applicants, as these employees are entitled to remuneration as per Prescribed Scale of Pay and Hours of Employment Regulations of Central Railway, from the moment they are brought on monthly rates of pay. It was not disputed before the Authority, nor before us, that the employees concerned are railway servants whose employment is "continuous," and their cases fall under Rule 5 of Railway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules 1951. The point that was urged before the Authority was that the rules framed under Section 71E of the Indian Railways Act provide for the remuneration, i.e., wages, payable to employees, including wages for overtime work, the employees concerned are governed by these rules, and hence the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and rules framed thereunder do not apply to the cases of these employees. The Authority over-ruled this contention. It was also urged before the Authority that in view of Rule 32 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply. This contention also was over-ruled. In view of these conclusions, the Authority held that the employees-applicants were entitled to the benefits conferred on them by the Minimum Wages Act, and were entitled to claim wages for overtime work as provided by the said Act, and rules framed thereunder. It is against this decision that these Special Civil Applications are preferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. Mr. Parikh, who appears for the Central Railway, contends that the Authority was wrong in holding that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) applied to the cases of the employees concerned. The contention advanced by Mr. Parikh before us is slightly different from the contention advanced before the Authority. This contention does not seem to have been advanced before the Authority in the particular from in which it is advanced before us. We have, however, allowed him to raise that contention inasmuch as the facts on which it is based are not disputed, and we are told that the same point arises in many cases before the Authority; moreover Mr. Namjoshi, who appears for the employees, also stated that it would be desirable that this Court decides the point that is urged by Mr. Parikh. Mr. Parikh contends that the object of the said Act is to provide for the minimum rates of wages in the case of scheduled employees, and the Act ensures that in the case of the employees, to whom the Act applies, every employer shall pay at least the minimum wage prescribed by the said Act and rules thereunder. Mr. Parikh contends that while considering the question of over-time wages payable to such employees, the total amount of wages paid by the employer to an employee will have to be considered in order to find out whether the minimum wage, as provided by the said Act and the rules thereunder, is paid to that emp




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top