Members of a Co-operative Society involved in managing and administering the affairs of the society may not be considered as employees entitled to minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act.

R. Banumathi, J.

Short point falling for consideration is whether Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the Members of Co-operative Society who are engaged in the manufacture work.

2. Petitioner-Society has been registered under Factories Act and it has engaged in the production of Polythene bags. Petitioner-Society admitted 32 members/workers who were doing the work of folding, cutting etc. 2nd Respondent-Assistant Inspector of Factories, Dindigul inspected the Petitioner- Society. In the Claim Petition No. 55/2001 filed before the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 2nd Respondent has stated that 32 workers are employed in the Polythene bag production work performing "jobbers" work, the employees are covered under Employees' State Insurance Act and Employees' Provident Fund Act and hence, Petitioner-Society falls under the coverage of Minimum Wages Act. The said 32 workers were not paid Minimum Wages as notified by the Government in G.O.(2D) No. 59 dated 19.12.1997 under the Minimum Wages Act for the period from January 2000 to August 2000.

3. Petitioner-Society resisted the Claim Petition stating that the members of the Society cannot be the employees and the said 32 persons are not the employees, but only members of the Society and those persons remain in the factory only one or two hours and that they are at liberty to leave the premises immediately after the completion of the quantum of work assigned to them. According to Petitioner-Society, their status cannot be equated as "Jobbers" which is grouped under the skilled categories in G.O.(2D) No. 59 dated 19.12.1997.

4. On the Claim Petition filed by the 2nd Respondent, 1st Respondent-Controlling Authority under Minimum Wages Act held that 32 persons involved in this case were doing the work of folding, cutting etc. Based upon the evidence of 2nd Respondent, the Controlling Authority held that the nature of the job done by 32 persons involved in the dispute is that of "Jobbers" and hence, 32 workers are entitled to get Minimum Wages fixed for "Jobbers" in G.O.(2D) No. 59 dated 19.12.1997.

5. Challenging the order of 1st Respondent, the Management preferred Writ Petition contending that 1st Respondent has failed to note that the said 32 persons are shareholders/members elect Directors, Vice-President, President and administer the affairs of the Society and that they enjoy the dividends and share profits and therefore, they are not the workmen as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder and prayed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of 1st Respondent made in M.W. No. 55 of 2001 dated 23.09.2004.

6. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, before the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge referred to the decision reported in 2003 (3) LLN 674 [Madathupatti Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai and two Ors.] wherein the Division Bench of this Court considered the applicability of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to the members of Co-operative Society. Holding that members of Co-operative Society cannot be construed as workmen, in Madathupatti Weavers' case, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

18. ...The society employed eight persons as their staff to maintain their records and other connected work. All the members of the Society are shareholders and they formed the Board of Management. They elect the President and Vice President among themselves. They share the profits, if any, among themselves. Besides, it is stated that all shareholders, who are members do not get yarn regularly and weave the cloth, nor is there any time frame work. The society also does not exercise any supervising control over them.

7. The learned single Judge also referred to The Workmen of Salem Co-operative Motor Society for Ex-Servicemen Ltd. Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1974) 2 LLJ 385, wher