Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.L. ABHYANKAR, D.B. PADHYE, JJ.
AMBIKA TOBACCO COMPANY, GONDIA — Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR AND OTHERS — Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 110 of 1966
Decided on : 17-03-1967
The petitioner-company deals in bidis. It supplied raw material to independent contractors and obtained katcha bidis prepared and rolled by workers employed by such independent contractors. Respondents 2 to 48 who are 47 in number, collectively, on the other hand, claim to be employees for bidi-rolling work, employed by the petitioner-company. These several respondents filed an application before respondent 1, which is a labour court at Nagpur, complaining that they had not been paid at the minimum rate of wages fixed by the State Government for workers in bidi industry, under a notification dated 14 June, 1958, which came into force from 1 July, 1958. The respondent-workers claimed the difference between the wages actually paid and the wages payable at the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government for the period from 1 May, 1959 to 15 December, 1961. The applications were filed on or about 10 April, 1964. The petitioner-company, which was noticed in each application, contested the claim of the respondent-workers on several grounds. It denied that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner on the one hand and the worker-respondents on the other. Its case was that the respondents, if at all, were the employees of one Budharam who was an independent contractor, having undertaken to supply katcha bidis to the petitioner under three contracts. The petitioner further disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court at Nagpur as constituted by the Governments to entertain the claim of the respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hereafter this Act will be referred to as the Act. It was further contended that if the claim was for payment of minimum wages, the authority contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act would be the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain claims under that Act, and the labour court would not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. It also disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court to determine the nature of relationship alleged to be subsisting between the petitioner and the respondents, namely, that of an employer and the employees, and also challenges in this Court now the correctness of the finding recorded by the labour court in that respect. The petitioner also pointed out that the respondents had in fact made an application under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, but that application was dismissed in default, and what is more, their application for having the application restored was also dismissed, and therefore a fresh application under the Industrial Disputes Act was not tenable on the principle of res judicata which should be called in aid. It is an admitted position that previous dismissal of the application under the Minimum Wages Act was only default and not on merits. The Court held that the claim of the respondents was validly entertained and has been properly adjudicated upon except as regards the quantum which it has directed to be paid to each of the workers. Each case is remanded to the labour court for a fresh computation, having regard to the period of limitation for three years which prima facie governs the claim of each worker.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company deals in bidis. It supplied raw material to independent contractors and obtained katcha bidis prepared and rolled by workers employed by such independent contractors. Respondents 2 to 48 who are 47 in number, collectively, on the other hand, claim to be employees for bidi-rolling work, employed by the petitioner-company. These several respondents filed an application before respondent 1, which is a labour court at Nagpur, complaining that they had not been paid at the minimum rate of wages fixed by the State Government for workers in bidi industry, under a notification dated 14 June, 1958, which came into force from 1 July, 1958. The respondent-workers claimed the difference between the wages actually paid and the wages payable at the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government for the period from 1 May, 1959 to 15 December, 1961. The applications were filed on or about 10 April, 1964. The petitioner-company, which was noticed in each application, contested the claim of the respondent-workers on several grounds. It denied that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner on the one hand and the worker-respondents on the other. Its case was that the respondents, if at all, were the employees of one Budharam who was an independent contractor, having undertaken to supply katcha bidis to the petitioner under three contracts. The petitioner further disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court at Nagpur as constituted by the Governments to entertain the claim of the respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hereafter this Act will be referred to as the Act. It was further contended that if the claim was for payment of minimum wages, the authority contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act would be the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain claims under that Act, and the labour court would not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. It also disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court to determine the nature of relationship alleged to be subsisting between the petitioner and the respondents, namely, that of an employer and the employees, and also challenges in this Court now the correctness of the finding recorded by the labour court in that respect. The petitioner also pointed out that the respondents had in fact made an application under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, but that application was dismissed in default, and what is more, their application for having the application restored was also dismissed, and therefore a fresh application under the Industrial Disputes Act was not tenable on the principle of res judicata which should be called in aid. It is an admitted position that previous dismissal of the application under the Minimum Wages Act was only default and not on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the claim of the respondents was validly entertained and has been properly adjudicated upon except as regards the quantum which it has directed to be paid to each of the workers. Each case is remanded to the labour court for a fresh computation, having regard to the period of limitation for three years which prima facie governs the claim of each worker.
Issues: 1. Whether the labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the claim of the respondents was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to the present case? 4. Whether the claim of the respondents was for a benefit which was capable of being computed in terms of money?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the claim was for a benefit which was capable of being computed in terms of money, and the labour court had the power to determine the amount of such benefit. 2. The claim of the respondents was barred by limitation to the extent that it related to a period more than three years prior to the date of filing of the application. 3. The principle of res judicata did not apply to the present case as the previous application under the Minimum Wages Act was dismissed in default and not on merits. 4. The claim of the respondents was for a benefit which was capable of being computed in terms of money, as it was for the difference between the wages actually paid and the minimum wages fixed by the State Government.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the labour court as regards the quantum which it had directed to be paid to each of the workers and remanded each case to the labour court for a fresh computation, having regard to the period of limitation for three years which prima facie governed the claim of each worker.
JUDGMENT :
ABHYANKAR, J.
1. The petitioner-company deals in bidis. It supplied raw material to independent contractors and obtained katcha bidis prepared and rolled by workers employed by such independent contractors. Respondents 2 to 48 who are 47 in number, collectively, on the other hand, claim to be employees for bidi-rolling work, employed by the petitioner-company. These several respondents filed an application before respondent 1, which is a labour court at Nagpur, complaining that they had not been paid at the minimum rate of wages fixed by the State Government for workers in bidi industry, under a notification dated 14 June, 1958, which came into force from 1 July, 1958. The respondent-workers claimed the difference between the wages actually paid and the wages payable at the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government for the period from 1 May, 1959 to 15 December, 1961. The applications were filed on or about 10 April, 1964.
2. The petitioner-company, which was noticed in each application, contested the claim of the respondent-workers on several grounds. It denied that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner on the one hand and the worker-respondents on the other. Its case was that the respondents, if at all, were the employees of one Budharam who was an independent contractor, having undertaken to supply katcha bidis to the petitioner under three contracts. The petitioner further disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court at Nagpur as constituted by the Governments to entertain the claim of the respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hereafter this Act will be referred to as the Act. It was further contended that if the claim was for payment of minimum wages, the authority contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act would be the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain claims under that Act, and the labour court would not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. It also disputed the jurisdiction of the labour court to determine the nature of relationship alleged to be subsisting between the petitioner and the respondents, namely, that of an employer and the employees, and also challenges in this Court now the correctness of the finding recorded by the labour court in that respect.
3. As to the merits of the claim the petitioner contended that what was claimed by the respondent-workers was not a benefit which alone could be claimed under Sub-section (2) of S. 33C of the Act, nor was it a benefit, which is capable of computation in terms of money. What is claimed was wages simpliciter, and in case of such a claim for wages there is no question of computing it in terms of money because it was money that itself is claimed and such a claim was not within contemplation on proper construction of Sub-section (1) of S. 33C of the Act. Lastly, it was claimed now in this Court that the labour court had no jurisdiction to award costs as it has done, namely, at the rate of Rs. 5 per applicant-worker.
4. Yet another contention raised is regarding limitation for this claim, and the effect of previous proceedings taken by the respondent-workers under the Minimum Wages Act itself. The contention regarding limitation is that the claim of the respondents not having been brought within six months of the cause of action, as provided by the proviso to Sub-section (2) of S. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, the claim, even if otherwise entertainable by the labour court, was barred. It was also alleged that in any case the claim more than three years old next before the date of presentation of the application was clearly barred in view of recent Full Bench decision of this Court that a limitation of three years would apply to all applications before any authority.
5. The petitioner also pointed out that the respondents had in fact ma
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
