Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3557
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
The Chief Conservator of Forests, Chennai & Others
Versus
P. Subramaniam, President & Others
W.P.Nos.24601 to 24606 of 2005, 10618 to 10621, 26976, 26977, 27218 to 27220, 27403 and 27406 of 2008, 21995, 21996, 22015, 22016, 22548 and 22652 of 2009, 23168, 24030 to 24046, 25055 to 25073 of 2010, 8431, 11018 and 11019 of 2011 & W.P.M.P.Nos.26911 to 26916 of 2005, 121 to 126 of 2008, M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2008, 1,1,1,1,1 and1 of 2009, 1 to 1 (19 nos.) of 2010 , 1 to 1 (17 nos.) of 2010, 1 to 1 (6 nos.), 1 to 1 (19 nos.),1,1 and 1 of 2011
Decided on : 08-08-2011
For the Petitioners: M.K. Subramaniam, Spl. G.P.(Forest).
For the Respondents:T. Murugamanickam, S. Ayyathurai, S.T. Varadarajulu, D. Rajagopal, Pass Associates, Advocates, V. Subbiah, Spl. G.P.
The main object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is to prevent sweated labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour. It proceeds on the basis that it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same. If the rates prescribed are reasonable but even if they would adversely affect the industry or even a small unit therein, then the industry or the unit as the case may be has no right to exist. Freedom of trade does not mean freedom to exploit.
Headnote:
Writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and challenging the Awards in various Industrial Disputes regarding non employment of Social Forestry Workers. The court held that the main object of the Act is to prevent sweated labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour. It proceeds on the basis that it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same. If the rates prescribed are reasonable but even if they would adversely affect the industry or even a small unit therein, then the industry or the unit as the case may be has no right to exist. Freedom of trade does not mean freedom to exploit. The court further held that the workmen were terminated from their services and the condition precedent under Section 25F of the I.D. Act was not followed before sending them out of services. If the condition under Section 25F was not followed, the legal consequences have been set out by the Supreme Court vide judgment in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in (2010) 5 SCC 497. The court also held that the Social Forestry work undertaken by the department will come within the term "industry" defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The court further held that the workmen are eligible for backwages only from the date of their demand made during the year 2007 and when the conciliation before the labour officer failed and that the labour officer had submitted his report under Section 12(4) on 15.3.2007.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and challenging the Awards in various Industrial Disputes regarding non employment of Social Forestry Workers.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the main object of the Act is to prevent sweated labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour. It proceeds on the basis that it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same. If the rates prescribed are reasonable but even if they would adversely affect the industry or even a small unit therein, then the industry or the unit as the case may be has no right to exist. Freedom of trade does not mean freedom to exploit. The court further held that the workmen were terminated from their services and the condition precedent under Section 25F of the I.D. Act was not followed before sending them out of services. If the condition under Section 25F was not followed, the legal consequences have been set out by the Supreme Court vide judgment in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in (2010) 5 SCC 497. The court also held that the Social Forestry work undertaken by the department will come within the term "industry" defined under Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The court further held that the workmen are eligible for backwages only from the date of their demand made during the year 2007 and when the conciliation before the labour officer failed and that the labour officer had submitted his report under Section 12(4) on 15.3.2007.
Issues: 1. Whether the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders? 2. Whether the Awards passed in the Industrial Disputes regarding non employment of Social Forestry Workers were valid? 3. Whether the workmen were entitled to backwages?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. 2. The court held that the Awards passed in the Industrial Disputes regarding non employment of Social Forestry Workers were valid. 3. The court held that the workmen were entitled to backwages only from the date of their demand made during the year 2007 and when the conciliation before the labour officer failed and that the labour officer had submitted his report under Section 12(4) on 15.3.2007.
Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and challenging the Awards in various Industrial Disputes regarding non employment of Social Forestry Workers were dismissed.
I and II. Writ petitions relating to Plot Watchers and Social Forestry Workers regarding claim for Minimum Wages : 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are officials of the Forest Department. In these writ petitions, they have come forward to challenge the orders passed by the authority constituted under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Though the orders challenged in these writ petitions may vary from writ petition to writ petition, a common question involved is their legal right to get differential wages as ordered by the Minimum Wages Authority by the impugned orders in favour of the contesting respondents.
2. Complaints were made before the minimum wages authority claiming for difference of wages for a particular period. The allegations were made by the Association of the Village Social Forestry Workers or the plot watchers as the case may be. Their employment was covered by Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act (for short M.W. Act). They are employed within the definition of Section 2(3) of the M.W. Act. They have not been paid minimum rates of wages fixed for their employment.
3. Before going into the details of the claims made by two sets of contesting respondents, i.e., Plot Watchers and Social Forestry workers, it is necessary to record briefly the history behind the fixation of minimum wages in the Forest Department.
4. The State Government had included in the Schedule of employments the various employments in the Forest Department under the caption "Employment in Forestry" vide G.O.Ms.No.2094, Labour and Employment, dated 06.09.1980. The said entry was introduced by virtue of Section 2(g) by the State Government. Subsequent to the including into the scheduled employment, the Government has been fixing rates of minimum wages from time to time. It is unnecessary to go into the earlier notification.
5. When a preliminary notification for the issuance of the said G.O. was made on 9.3.1988 calling for objections, the department had raised objections stating that by fixing minimum wages, there will be an huge loss to the Government. Notwithstanding their objections, the State Government had confirmed the minimum wage notification by G.O.Ms.No.2292, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17.10.1988. Pursuant to the fixation of wages, representations were sent to the department for implementing the minimum wages notification. But, instead of implementing the order, the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.46, Environment and Forest Department, dated 12.1.1990 had fixed minimum wages at Rs.350/- per month. In effect, they had taken note of basic pay of Rs.14/- as the basis and calculating the monthly rate by multiplying into 25 days, they had fixed Rs.350/-. Since dearness allowance was not calculated, a Forestry Workers Association had filed O.A.Nos.3873 and 2388 of 1990 for giving a direction to the respondents to fix dearness allowance.
6. In the meanwhile, the State Government by an order in G.O.Ms.No.382, Finance (Allowance) dated 4.5.1994 had fixed dearness allowance in respect of persons who were drawing consolidated pay by taking note of the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Labour Department. Fixed dearness allowance of Rs.20/- was fixed with effect from 1.1.1994. But the Tribunal by its order, dated 13.12.1994 in the two original applications had directed the department to adhere to the G.O.Ms.No.2292, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17.10.1988 to be implemented together with the dearness allowance payable on or before 31.3.1994. In the meanwhile the Government issued G.O.(D)No.1047, Labour and Employment Department, dated 3.8.1995. The Government had fixed minimum wages by having recourse to Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is for the Plot Watchers, the daily rate of wages was fixed at 21.50 per day together with variable Dearness Allowance at the rate of Rs.2.5 paise per point. By this process, the previous notification issued by G.O.Ms.No.2292, Labour and Employment De
