The appellant is entitled to minimum wages on a monthly basis as per the notification, regardless of the hours worked.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of order dated 23.05.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the appellant’s prayer for grant of minimum monthly wages as per Notification dated 24.05.2008 published on 26.05.2008 has been dismissed.

3. Quint essential facts necessary for determination of controversy involved in the present appeal are that the appellant was initially engaged vide order dated 15.03.1985 to work as Cleaner (Safai Karamchari) in the office of Land Settlement Officer, Alwar. In course of time, her services were terminated, which led to filing of a suit, which was decreed and the order of dismissal from service was set aside vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.1999 passed by the Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 10/91. The decree stated that the appellant is reinstated as part time employee/Safai Karamchari on a monthly wage of Rs. 364/- per month.

4. It appears that the appellant had prayed for regularisation by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4068/2001. However, that writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 09.08.2007 as the claim for regularisation was not found tenable in law.

5. The appellant, however, had been parallelly claiming minimum wages for which purpose, she approached the Competent Authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Competent Authority’). Vide order dated 29.09.2011, the Competent Authority, after holding a brief enquiry, allowing parties to make their statements and lead oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that, though, the appellant is not entitled to the amount as claimed by her, however, it was held that she is entitled to minimum wages of Rs. 1,300/- per month for four hours per day and on that basis, relief to limited extent was granted.

6. The appellant aggrieved by the order to the extent her claim was rejected, approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by impugned order, giving rise to this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant having been appointed on monthly wages to work as workman in the establishment of the respondent, is statutorily protected in the matter of payment of minimum wages, vide Notification dated 24.05.2008, which provides for minimum wage on day basis and monthly basis. His argument is that irrespective of whether the appellant was engaged to work for four hours and not the full hours of the day of work, in the absence of there being any prescription of minimum wages on hourly basis, the appellant is entitled to minimum wages on monthly basis. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted provisions contained in Section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1948’). It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that even though, there was an enabling provision as contained in Section 3(3)(b) of the Act of 1948, the respondent authority did not chose to fix wages on hourly basis. Therefore, irrespective of the hours of work done by the appellant, she is entitled to wages on monthly basis as per the structure of minimum wages fixed vide Notification dated 24.05.2008. He would submit that in plethora of decisions, the object of enactment of minimum wages was considered. He relied upon the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of U. Unichoyi and Others vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 12, Workmen Represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett. and Co. Ltd. (1992) 1 SCC 290, Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and Another vs. Tiffin’s Barytes Asbestos and Paints Ltd. and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 594, Lanco Anpara Power Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 10 SCC 329, Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and Others vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 33 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in th