Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
SULABH INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION – Petitioner
Versus
REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) & ORS – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5944/2012 & CM. Nos. 12240-41/2012, CAV 961/2012, 16373-74/2012, 16375-76/2012, CAV. 972/2012, 16377-78/2012, CAV. 973/2012, 16379-80/2012, CAV. 974/2012, 16381-82/2012, 16383-84/2012, 16385-86/2012, 16387-88/2012, CAV. 977/2012, 16389-90/2012, CAV. 975/2012, 16391-92/2012, CAV. 976/2012
Decided On : 18.10.2012
Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Advocates
Ms. Sweety Manchanda, CGSC for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Vidya Nand Sharma, R2. Mr. Rajat Katyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. for R3.
The deployment of respondent No. 2 as a social worker is a new method of forced labor in the society, which needs to be curbed.
Headnote:
MINIMUM WAGES ACT - VOLUNTEERS - EMPLOYMENT - FORCED LABOUR - MINIMUM WAGES - CONTRACT - ARTICLE 23 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - VOLUNTARY SOCIAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION - DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER - RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE - MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 2(E), 2(G), 25 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(J) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 226, 227, 23.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sulabh International Social Service Organization, and the respondent No. 3, Director All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, challenged the sustainability of the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Regional Labor Commissioner. The Regional Labor Commissioner, being the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, allowed the claim petition that has been filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 20(2) of the Act. The Authority also held that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 both are severally and jointly responsible for the payment of the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the deployment of respondent No. 2 as a social worker is a new method of forced labor in the society, which needs to be curbed. The Court also held that the relationship of the petitioner and respondent No.3 with respondent No. 2 is established as employer and employee. Respondent No.2 is entitled to get the minimum wages as per the scheme of the Constitution of India as well as the object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged volunteers, deployed through the petitioner, namely Sulabh International Organization, are entitled to get the minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act? 2. Whether the petitioner is an industry or not, and whether the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but it is an employer under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Court also held that the respondent No. 2 is an employee of the petitioner and is entitled to get the minimum wages as per the scheme of the Constitution of India as well as the object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner and confirmed the impugned order passed by the Regional Labor Commissioner.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. The Sulabh International Social Service Organization, and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, by way of the present petitions, are challenging the sustainability of the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Regional Labor Commissioner. Since all the petitions have arisen from the common order, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by this common judgment. The facts of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5944/2012 would be discussed inter alia being the lead matter.
2. The petitioner Sulabh International Social Service Organization, and respondent No. 3, Director All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, by way of different writ petitions, are challenging the sustainability of the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Regional Labor Commissioner. The Regional Labor Commissioner, being the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, allowed the claim petition that has been filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 20(2) of the Act. The Authority also held that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 both are severally and jointly responsible for the payment of the claim.
3. Facts of this case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement for deployment of the respondent No.2 for employment of cleaning and sweeping at the premises of All India Institute of Medical Science, as such respondent No. 2 worked during the period from 25.01.2008 to 31.03.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition before this Court for the payment of minimum wages. The same was disposed of by the order dated 17.02.2010, whereby the respondent No. 2 was directed to approach the appropriate Forum. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 preferred a claim application before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act; same has been allowed by the impugned order.
4. The moot question for the consideration in these writ petitions is that whether the alleged volunteers, deployed through the petitioner, namely Sulabh International Organization, are entitled to get the minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act.
5. The petitioner Sulabh International has relied upon the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 3408/1989 by the High Court of Patna, wherein the said Court observed as under:-
“The Petitioner establishment has set up lavatories and bathrooms, the construction being of very simple in nature for the use of the public which need not be cleaned by the scavenger nor does it require carrying of any night soil on anyones head. Further, the jobless scavengers or other persons rendered without employment are now being imparted vocational training in centers which may help them to find jobs. For this purpose it has a large number of volunteers who are paid small sums of money as pocket money for their pocket expenses. It is true that in every case of industry, the element of profit and loss need not be there yet as I read the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the definition cannot be extended to a purely voluntary organization like the Petitioner establishment which is working for public good and in the interest of the weaker Section of the society.”
6. Adopting the observation made in the above judgment, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, since there is no relationship of employer and employee which is a prerequisite for the application of the Minimum Wages Act. He pointed out that the object of the establishment is to liberate the scavengers from the sub human occupation; and is a voluntary philanthropic organization carrying out its activities on “no profit and no loss basis”. Secondly, the petitioner has relied upon a circular dated 03.04.2001 issued by Jt. Labor Commissioner, New Delhi wherein the application of Labor Laws has been excluded qua petitioner establishment. The said circular is reproduced as under: “GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI LABOUR
