JUDGMENT - KANTHARIA H.H., J.:—Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 made Application (IDA) No. 3083 of 1977, under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.D. Act”), in the Labour Court, Bombay, presided over by respondent No. 17, against the petitioner and respondent No. 16 for computation of money due to them on the ground that they were in the permanent employment of the petitioner and respondent No. 16 and were performing the jobs of reconditioning steel or galvanising drums which work came within the purview of an Engineering Industry and as per a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, prescribing the minimum wages for the Engineering Industry with effect from 1st December, 1974, they be paid the difference between the wages actually paid to them and to which they were entitled under the Minimum Wages Act for the Engineering Industry under the said notification. They thus claimed Rs. 2,77,916/- for all of them.

2. Their application was resisted by the petitioner contending that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the claim under section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act and except the first four or five respondents, others were never in his employment. The petitioner also contended that he did not carry on business in an Engineering Industry as alleged and that prior to 1st December, 1974, he was paying minimum wages to his employees as prescribed for the employees working in a commercial establishment under the Bombay Shops Establishments Act, 1948, as he was running a purely commercial establishment.

3. Appreciating the evidence adduced before him, the learned Labour Judge rejected all the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly by his judgment and order dated 28th November, 1983 allowed the application and ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,27,916/- to respondents Nos. 1 to 15.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. At the time of admission, the petitioner filed a statement in this Court (marked 'X'), including the amounts due and payable to the first four respondents and undertook to pay the same within four weeks. Mr. Shastri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 15, accepted the said amounts in full satisfaction of the claims of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. As regards the claims of respondents No. 5 to 15, Rule nisi was issued and interim relief staying the execution of the impugned order was also granted to the petitioner on his furnishing security for half the amounts awarded to respondents Nos. 5 to 15. We are, therefore, now concerned with the claims of respondents Nos. 5 to 15 only. They shall hereinafter be referred to as “the workmen”.

6. Mr. Cama, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised in all five contentions for my consideration. The first point which he made is that the petitioner's establishment was never an Engineering Industry and always was and a covered by the Shops and Establishments Act. The submission is that the workmen are not entitled to the minimum wages permissible in an Engineering Industry under the notification in question. In this connection, he referred to Entry No. 36 of the Schedule, Part I, to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which reads as under:

“Employment in engineering industry (not being an employment falling under Entry 26 in this Part), that is to say, any industry engaged in any manufacturing process in relation to any machinery, tools, instruments, utensils or articles or parts thereof, manufactured from ferrous or non-ferrous metals or any alloys (including manufacturers of ancillary products for automobile industry, manufacture of bicycles including its spare parts) and processes connected therewith such as shaping, pressing, extrusion, turning, fabricating processing, smelting, refining, drilling, cutting, joining, grinding, forging, welding, buffing, electroplating and mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document