Workmen paid on a piece-rate basis are entitled to minimum wages, and non-payment of minimum wages amounts to forced labor, prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner is voluntary organisation and at the relevant point of time, they had a tailoring unit functioning under its control. The workmen who are respondents 2 to 13 herein filed a claim petition before the first respondent Labour Court under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act). The claim related to payment of wages in lieu of weekly off, festival off as well as minimum wages applicable to tailoring industry. They also claimed unpaid bonus.

2. Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner/Management contended that the workmen were not in their employment and there was no Master Servant relationship between the Management and the workmen. They had also stated that they cannot claim any Minimum wages under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further they also stated that the work undertaken by the petitioner organisation was on behalf of Khadi Gramaudyog Bhavan pursuant to the contract with them. Therefore, the only work done by the workmen was stitching the garments, as per the specifications and the workmen were paid on a piece rate basis. Before the Labour Court, workmen had examined themselves as W.W1 to W.W.10 and they also marked the wage register for several years. On behalf of the management, they have had filed documents to show that the workmen were paid on piece rate basis. They also submitted the orders and correspondence between them and the Khadi Gramaudyog Bhavan. The Labour Court disallowed the claim for bonus and directed the Management to make payment for festival and weekly off as well as the unpaid Minimum wages. The Labour Court also specified amounts to be paid in respect of each workmen. It is against this order, the writ petition has been filed. An order of interim stay was also granted which was subsequently made absolute by this Court on 212. 2002.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/management Mr.B.Suresh Babu submitted that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous. It did not address the issues raised by the Management in their counter statement filed in the various claim petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in as much as the workmen are paid on piece rate basis, the question of fixing any minimum wages does not arise. In any event, the workmen ought to have moved the machinery under the Minimum Wages Act, namely, under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act and not to resort claim under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the industry is no longer in existence, as the contract between them and the Khadi Gramaudyog Bhavan has also come to an end.

4. In this case, we are not concerned about as to what happened subsequent to the orders passed by the Labour Court. The two questions arises for consideration are whether in respect of piece-rate wages, Minimum Wages Act provisions are applicable and whether the workmen are eligible to approach the Labour Court under Section 33C (2) even in respect of claim under Minimum Wages Act. These issues are no longer res integra.

5. With reference to the above, the Supreme Court in Labourers, Salal Hydro Projet v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1983 (2) SCC 181 held that Workmen were also eligible for minimum wages and therefore, if the Workmen despite piece rate work are not paid the minimum rate fixed are entitled to get the short fall between the piece rate earnings and the minimum wages fixed by the respective Government. Otherwise, the Supreme Court also held in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and others (1982 (3) SCC 235), that non payment of minimum wages would amount to forced labour which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The second contention that Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act cannot be initiated for a claim for minimum wages is also considered by various judgments including in Municipal Council, Akola v. Labour court (1976 (1) LLJ 334 and Municipal Counci