Important Point—(1) The minimum wages must provide for preservation of the efficiency of the workers including measure of education, medical requirements and amenities for himself and his family. If there are inflationary conditions prevailing in the country, then, minimum wages fixed at a particular point of time would not serve the purpose. Therefore, Section 4 contemplates that minimum wages fixed at a particular point of time should be revised from time to time.
(2) A proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is generally in the nature of an execution proceeding wherein the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer. No fresh adjudicatory exercise is permissible for the Court within its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2).

1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in an industrial dispute application filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).

2. The Petitioner is a private company limited by shares, engaged in the business of manufacture of laboratory chemicals and fine chemicals. It has factories at (i) Village Saravali, near Bhiwandi and (ii) Thane. Its head office is at Fort, Mumbai. The Respondent was employed at its head office as a secretary-cum-stenographer since 1986. On a reference made to it under the ID Act in 1982 on behalf of workmen at the Petitioner's factories at Saravali and Thane (Reference (ID) No.65 of 1982), the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay had passed an award in favour of some workmen employed at the Petitioner's factories inter alia directing the Petitioner to pay dearness allowance. In or about 2001, the Respondent filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act before the 6th Labour Court at Mumbai claiming (a) special allowance declared by the Government from time to time between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 2000, (b) dearness allowance determined in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, (c) overtime wages and (d) mediclaim benefits, being Application (I.D.A.) No.522 of 2001. The Labour Court rejected the Respondent's claim towards overtime wages, but allowed his claims towards special allowance, dearness allowance and mediclaim. This order is challenged by the Petitioner in the present petition.

3. Mr. Jalisatgi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, makes the following submissions:

(i) Variable dearness / special allowance fixed by Government Notification/s is part of the minimum wages fixed by the Government and it is not permissible to compute minimum wages in two parts, namely, basic wages and dearness allowance. It is the total of the two items which constitutes minimum wages required to be paid under the notification/s, and in the event the total wages paid to an employee are more than minimum wages, no special / dearness allowance is separately payable.

(ii) The award made by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (ID) No.65 of 1982 was exclusively in respect of five workmen working at the Petitioner's factory and had no bearing on the wages or allowances payable to the Respondent, who was working as part of the Petitioner's staff at the head office.

(iii) A proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is in the nature of an execution proceeding arising out of an industrial adjudication already made and the Labour Court in such proceeding merely computes benefits to which a workman is entitled in terms of money as a result of the adjudication and not an adjudicatory proceeding itself for determining the entitlement of a workman to the benefits claimed.

4. Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits as follows:

(i) Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act makes it clear that the rates prescribed as minimum wages may either be (a) all-inclusive, or (b) basic rate of wages with or without the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions, where authorized, or (c) a basic rate of wages and a special allowance at a rate to be adjusted. In the present case, the special allowance is not part of basic wages prescribed as minimum wages and must be paid separately over and above the basic wages prescribed. Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Airfreight Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, 1999 II CLR 537 on this point.

(ii) The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (ID) No.65 of 1982 is applicable and binding on the Petitioner also in respect of other members of its staff who were not parties to the award including the Respondent herein. Learned Counsel relies on Section 18 of the ID Act and cites the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Manager, Hotel Imperial vs. The Chief Commissioner, Del