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

1997 Supreme(Pat) 542

PATNA HIGH COURT
Choudhary and S.N.Mishra JJ.
Anil Agrawal
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1191 of 1988 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 01, 1997

The appropriate government for regulating the wages of employees working in a stone breaking and crushing plant that is not situated in a quarry and is not used for depositing refuse from the mine is the State Government.

Headnote:

MINIMUM WAGES ACT - APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT - STONE BREAKING AND CRUSHING PLANT - JURISDICTION - STATE GOVERNMENT - SEC. 2(B) OF THE ACT READ WITH ITEM 8 OF THE SCHEDULE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who runs a Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant far away from the leasehold premises, challenged the jurisdiction of the Central Government in regulating the wages of its employees. The petitioner contended that the plant is not used for depositing refuse from the mine and is not adjacent to the mining area, thus falling outside the purview of the Central Government's authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appropriate government for regulating the wages of employees working in the petitioner's plant is the State Government, as the plant is not situated in a quarry and is not used for depositing refuse from the mine.

Issues: 1. Whether the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant of the petitioner comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Government or the State Government for fixing and regulating the wages of its employees. 2. Interpretation of Sec. 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, read with Item 8 of the Schedule.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra V/s. Mohanlol Devichand Shah, which held that if the employment of stone breaking and crushing is not in a quarry, it will come within the jurisdiction of the State Government. 2. The court interpreted Sec. 2(b) of the Act read with Item 8 of the Schedule to demarcate the jurisdiction of the Central Government and the State Governments. It held that if the employment in stone breaking or stone crushing is not in a quarry, it is the State Government that will have jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The court quashed the letter and notice issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) directing the petitioner to rectify irregularities and show cause for not realizing wages under the Act.

Judgment

Choudhary S.N.Mishra, J.

1. The short but interesting question which arises for adjudication in this writ application is as to whether the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant belonging to the petitioner will come within the jurisdiction of the Central Government and/or State Government for the purpose of fixing and regulating the Wages of its Employees working with the plant, in question. The facts are not in dispute which are as follows:

2. The petitioner Anil Agrawal, who is the proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Minerals, Bar-ganda, P.O. Giridih, District Giridih (T), runs the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant at Ma-heshmunda. The petitioner is also a lessee with respect to certain minor minerals (Stone Boulders) under the lease granted by the State of Bi-har which is situated in the district of Giridih. Labourers are separately engaged both in the Mines for extracting stone boulders as well as at his crusher plant at Maheshmunda and the wages of the employees working with the plant are being paid in terms of the notification issued by the State Government from time to time under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The further case of the petitioner is that the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant of the petitioner is situated far away from the lease hold premises and the said plant is not being used for deposit-ing refuse from the mine and/or any operation in connection thereof is being carried on by the owner of the plant. The respondent No. 4, namely, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) issued a letter dated May 2, 1986 directing the petitioner to rectify the irregularities pointed out in the inspection report on the presumption that the stone crushing activities include mine in terms of Sec. 2(i)(j) (ix) of the Mines Act, 1952 as amended in 1979, a copy of the said let- ter is made Annexure-1 to this writ application. The respondent Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), therefore, issued a notice dated September 24, 1987 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the wages in terms of the provisions of the Act be not realised. A copy of the said notice is made Annexure- 3 to this suit application. Ultimately, a case under the Act was instituted against the petitioner for realisation of the wage under the Act. It may be mentioned here that prior to the institution of the case by the respondent, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) a similar proceeding was initiated and is still pending before the authority of the State Government for realisation of the wages of the employees working with the plant in terms of the provisions of the Act.

3. In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State Respondents and/or the Central Government. Accordingly this writ application is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made therein.

4. Mr. Marathia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the notice and the letter issued by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 namely the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) as well as Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on the ground that the process of stone breaking and crushing is not being carried on within the premises of the Mining Area and/or adjacent thereto and as such it will not come within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. It is submitted that undoubtedly, the stone breaking and crushing plant comes within the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, as it has been specifically mentioned in item No. 8 of the Schedule appended thereto. The question arises as to who is the appropriate authority for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act, Sec. 2(b) of the Act defines the appropriate government as follows :

"Sec. 2(b) of Minimum Wages Act: "Appropriate Government" means (i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or a railway administration, or in relation to a mine, oil field or major port, or any corporation esta

















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top