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

1989 Supreme(Pat) 64

PATNA HIGH COURT
P.S.Mishra and S.B.Sinha JJ.
Purnea Zila Mazdoor Union Through Its Secretary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4096 of 1983 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 17, 1989

The State Government is statutorily liable to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by the contractor.

Headnote:

MINIMUM WAGES - PAYMENT - LIABILITY - STATE GOVERNMENT - CONTRACTOR - MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 - CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 - ARTICLES 21, 23, 43, 48 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Bihar undertook the construction of an irrigational canal in North Bihar commonly known as Western Kosi Canal. A part of the said activity, namely, cross drainage syphoon falls within the territorial limits of Kingdom of Nepal. The State of Bihar and the Union of India entered into an agreement for carrying out the aforementioned activities. The job relating to the construction of the cross drainage syphoon was awarded to Respondent No. 7. The petitioner union alleged that the respondent No. 7 was not paying the minimum wages to its employees as per the notifications issued by the State of Bihar under the provision of Minimum Wages Act. The State of Bihar contended that it was not bound to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by the respondent No. 7 at the enhanced rate nor was it liable to increase its contract rate for the said purposes. The respondent No. 7 contended that the State of Bihar was bound to pay the minimum wages to its workmen.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the State of Bihar being a principal employer in terms of the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was statutorily liable to make payments to the concerned workmen wages in full or the unpaid balance due to them, as the case may be. The Court further held that the State of Bihar is jointly and severally liable to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by the respondent No. 7 in respect of the aforementioned job.

Issues: 1. Whether the State of Bihar is liable to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by the respondent No. 7? 2. Whether the respondent No. 7 is liable to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by it?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State of Bihar being a principal employer in terms of the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was statutorily liable to make payments to the concerned workmen wages in full or the unpaid balance due to them, as the case may be. 2. The Court further held that the State of Bihar is jointly and severally liable to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by the respondent No. 7 in respect of the aforementioned job.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State of Bihar to pay the difference in wages to the concerned workmen who are the members of the petitioner-union within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Judgment

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This writ petition involves an interesting question as to whether the State of Bihar having been carrying on an industry has any constitutional or statutory liability to pay the minimum wages to the employees engaged by the contractor inter alia in terms of the provisions contained in Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

2. The basic facts of this case are not at all in dispute.

3. In discharge of its sovereign duty and in obedience to the directive principles of the Constitution as enshrined under Article 48 of the Constitution the State of Bihar undertook construction of an irrigational canal in North Bihar commonly known as Western Kosi Canal. Admittedly, a part of the said activity, namely, cross drainage syphoon falls within the territorial limits of Kingdom of Nepal. In order to facilitate carrying out of the aforementioned activities on the part of the State of Bihar, the Union of India and the Government of Nepal admittedly entered into an agreement.

4. The job relating to the construction of the aforementioned cross drainage syphoon at 32.89 k.m. (Panchi Dhar) of Western Kosi Main Canal, the State of Bihar issued notice inviting tenders pursuant whereof the respondent No. 7 submitted tenders and was eventually awarded the said job. A copy of the said agreement entered into by and between the State of Bihar and the respondent No. 7 is contained in Annexure-D to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State. In terms of the provisions contained in the said agreement, the respondent No. 7 undertook to pay the wages to its employees in accordance with such rates as may be notified from time to time under the provision of the Minimum Wages Act.

5. The petitioner which is a union of the workmen has stated in the writ petition that with effect from 1-11-1981 the workmen had been getting their wages at the rate of Rs. 8 per day. It is further stated that with effect from 1-1-1982 the minimum wages of the unskilled workers were enhanced from Rs. 8.86 to Rs. 10.14 but inspite thereof the workmen were not being paid the wages at the aforementioned rate by the respondent No. 7. It is also stated that the respondent No. 7 assured the petitioner-union has further alleged that the minimum wages of the unskilled work the aforementioned rate and for the said purpose the respondent No. 7 allegedly had taken up the matter with the State of Bihar. The petitioner-union has further alleged that the minimum wages of the unskilled workers were again enhanced by the State of Bihar with effect from 1st July, 1982 from Rs. 10.14 to Rs. 10.30 and again from Rs. 10.30 to Rs. 11.45 with effect from 1st January, 1983 but the members of the union had been getting the wages only at the rate of Rs. 9 per day.

6. The respondent No. 7 in the counter-affidavit has not denied the fact that its employees were entitled to get the wages at the fixed in terms of the notifications issued by the State of Bihar under the provision of Minimum Wages Act from time to time, but has put forward a contention that in view of the escalation in the cost of labour, the burden of payment of the enhanced minimum wages was on the State of Bihar in respect wherefor it was bound to enhance the rate so as to enable it to discharge its contractual liability to its workmen.

7. The primal contention of the State, on the other hand, is that in terms of the agreement as contained in Annexure-D to the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit it was/is not bound to pay the minimum wages to the workmen employed by the respondent No. 7 at the enhanced rate nor was it liable to increase its contract rate for the said purposes. In support of the said contention our attention was drawn to the following class of the said agreement:

4.13.7-In respect of all labour directly or indirectly employed on the work, the contractor shall comply with all legislation and rules of the State and/or Central Government or H.M.G. of Nepal or other local auth













































































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