Back
1997 Supreme(Guj) 527
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.L.Gokhale
PROJECT TECHNOLOGISTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
P.C.BHARGAVA - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 1903 of 1997
Decided On : 10/20/1997
Headnote:(a) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sec. 20 - Payment of wages - Large number of illiterate workers involved - Absence of signature - Discrepancies in deposition of witness - Held, no conclusion could be drawn on basis of probabilities.
In view of absence of any direct evidence in a case where large number of illiterate workmen are involved, the authority could not have drawn a conclusion based on probabilities in favour of the petitioners. The absence of even the name of the petitioners on the payment sheets. the absence of signature of any of their officers thereon, the absence of any independent witness and serious discrepancy in the deposition of their own witness are factors which are taken into consideration by the learned Minimum Wages Authority and the authority cannot be faulted for that. It cannot therefore, be held that the authority has erred in coming to the conclusion that the payments had not been made as required.
[Para 8]
(b) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sec. 20 - Payment of wages - Wages revised on 8.12.1994 - Notice given to petitioners on 19.12.1994 - No attempt to exploit illiterate workers - Held, it is venial breach and it does not call for levy of compensation.
The minimum wages came to be revised in December 1994. It was during that month itself i.e. on 8.12.1994 that the petitioners were informed accordingly and they were given the notice on 19.12.1994. The defence of the petitioners is that in fact they have made the payment but for the reasons stated above the Minimum Wages Authority could not accept tthe defence and held that there was a short payment. This cannot be said to be a case where the employer is attempting to exploit the illiterate workmen for his benefit by making under payments or consciously avoiding it. At the highest, as stated earlier, if there is any breach, it is a venial breach which does not call for the levy of compensation.
[Para 11]
(c) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sec. 20(3) - Payment of wages - No provision for deposit of wages - Number of workers involved - Address not entered - Held, direction to deposit amount with Assistant Labour Commissioner is maintained.
Section 20(3) of the Act directs the payment of the wages to the employees and that there is no provision for deposit. The number of workmen involved is 92 and their addresses are not entered any where in this petition.In these circumstances, there is no option but to maintain the direction to deposit the amount with the Asst. Commisssioner of Labour (Central).
[Para 12]
( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Thakar for the petitioner. This petition came to us earlier on 17th March 1997 before another Judge (Calla, J.) when a notice was issued to the respondents. The matter has been pending since then. It is a matter concerning the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is desirable that it be disposed of at the earliest. Hence, Rule. The same is made returnable forthwith. Mr. J. D. Ajmera waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. V. M. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Mr. Patel has already filed an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No. 3.
( 2 ) THE facts leading to this controversy are as follows :-THE first petitioner is a private limited company engaged in execution of civil engineering contracts. The second petitioner is its Managing Director. The first petitioner at the relevant time was laying down pipeline for respondent No. 3, i. e. , Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the officers of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) whereas respondent No. 1 is the Regional labour Officer (Central) and he is also an authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As stated above, the petitioner was executing certain works for respondent no. 3 during 7-7-1993 till the end of December 1994 at Viramgam, District ahmedabad. The minimum rate of wages payable for each month to the workers was Rs. 30. 00 per day up to the end of November 1994. In December 1994 it came to be revised to Rs. 38. 80. Respondent No. 2 happened to visit the work site of the petitioners on 8th December 1994 and informed them about the above referred revision. On 19th December 1994 he sent them a notice informing them that for the 92 workmen engaged in that project the difference in the amount payable had been worked out to Rs. 196. 80 per person for 24 actual days of working for the month of December 1994. The amount in all came to Rs. 18,105. 60. It is relevant to note in this connection that the petitioner was having a valid licence under the Contract labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970, for 92 workmen.
( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that as per the said notice they paid the amount by withdrawing an equal amount on 31-12-1994. They wrote a letter to respondent no. 2 on 31-12-1994 which in paragraph No. 3 reads as under :-"the difference in minimum wages as shown in the statement given by you, we are arranging to make payment of difference in wages immediately and the documents will be produced to you for your verification. "
( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the payment made by them, respondent No. 2 filed an application under S. 20 (2) of the aforesaid Act on 1-6-1995. The petitioner filed their reply. They also wrote a letter on 7-8-1995 to the Minimum Wages Authority recording that they had paid the difference to the workmen. In that letter they referred to their above earlier letter dated 31st December 1994. They enclosed a copy of the wage-sheet for the reference of the authority. The petitioner examined two witnesses : one Mr. Gautam Chakravarti, the Resident engineer and Mr. B. Jankiraman, Senior Maintenance Manager of Indian Oil corporation. After considering this evidence, the relevant authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not made the necessary payment in spite of the notice. The authority, therefore, proceeded to pass an order directing the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,105. 60 with the authority. The authority also awarded a compensation to the extent of three times of the claim being Rs. 54,316. 80. The amount towards the claim and the compensation came to Rs. 72,422. 40. The authority directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 72,422. 00 with the Assistant Labour commissioner, Ahmedabad. Being aggrieved by that order dated 27th November 1996, this petition has been filed.
( 5 ) MR. Thakar, learned Advocate appearing for t
