Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
I.D.Dua and P.C.Pandit JJ.
Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran Through Executive Officer
Versus
State Of Punjab Through The Secretary To The Government Labour Department
Civil Writ No. 1373 of 1965,
Decided On : OCTOBER 29, 1965
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - JURISDICTION - MINIMUM WAGES ACT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION - LIMITATION - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTE DESPITE LIMITATION UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT - SECTION 24 OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT - INTERPRETATION - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NOT A “COURT” WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 24 - NO BAR TO JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran, challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding non-payment of minimum wages to its employees, as the remedy for such disputes lay under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Committee also contended that the claim was barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation beyond the scope of the reference.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute despite the existence of a remedy under the Minimum Wages Act, as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was a special enactment dealing with industrial disputes and could operate concurrently with the Minimum Wages Act. 2. Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act, which barred suits for recovery of wages that could have been recovered by an application under Section 20, did not apply to proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, as the Tribunal was not a “Court” within the meaning of Section 24. 3. The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act did not bar the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, as no limitation was prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The Tribunal's award of compensation for non-payment of minimum wages was within the scope of the reference, as the reference sought compensation for non-payment of revised minimum wages fixed by a Government notification.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding non-payment of minimum wages to employees, considering the existence of a remedy under the Minimum Wages Act. 2. Whether Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act, barring suits for recovery of wages recoverable by an application under Section 20, applied to proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. 3. Whether the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act barred the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Whether the Tribunal's award of compensation for non-payment of minimum wages was within the scope of the reference.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Industrial Disputes Act was a special enactment dealing with industrial disputes and could operate concurrently with the Minimum Wages Act, which was a general enactment. 2. The word “Court” in Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act meant a “Civil Court”, and the Industrial Tribunal was not a “Civil Court”, as proceedings before it were not initiated by the presentation of a plaint. 3. The absence of a limitation period under the Industrial Disputes Act meant that the Tribunal was not bound by the limitation prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. 4. The Tribunal's award of compensation for non-payment of minimum wages was within the scope of the reference, as the reference sought compensation for non-payment of revised minimum wages fixed by a Government notification.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partially allowed, and the award of the Industrial Tribunal was remitted to the Tribunal for clarification regarding the names of the Moharrirs entitled to payment for weekly rests and the amounts due to them.
P.C.Pandit, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran in District Amritsar, and is directed against the order dated 5-6-1964 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, and the award given by him on 24-12-1964.
2. According to the allegations of the petitioner Committee, it has a large number of employees working under it and they had been allotted different duties. On 1-2-1960 the Punjab Government issued a notification fixing the minimum rate of wages of the employees of this committee, under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 , with effect from 12-5-1960. No demand was, however, made by any of the employees seeking any increase in their wages, but the petitioner itself enforced the payment of wages in accordance with this notification, with effect from 1-6-1961. All the employees then started receiving payment at enhanced rates without any objection or protest. On 20-12-1963, for the first time, the Municipal Lower Grade Employees Union, respondent No. 3. got a reference made from the State of Punjab under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . for adjudication to respondent No. 2 on the following two matters :-
-
(a) Whether the workmen are entitled to any compensation for non-payment of revised rate of minimum wages fixed under Labour Department Notification No. 352-3-Lb-II-60/2788 dated 1-2-1960 with effect from 12th May, 1960? If so, with what detail?
(b) Whether the workmen are entitled to any compensation for non-grant of weekly rest? If so, with what detail?
The said reference was taken up by respondent No. 2 who called upon the petitioner to submit its objections. Thereupon, the petitioner objected inter alia, that the said reference was beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2, because the statutory remedy of the workmen was provided under Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act, which also prescribed a period of limitation for that purpose. Respondent No. 2 then framed the following three preliminary issues:-
- 1. Is the reference bad in law for the reasons given in the written statement of the Municipal Committee?
2. Is the reference vague and indefinite? If so what is its effect?
3. Is the amount demanded by the workmen recoverable only under the Minimum Wages Act and cannot a reference qua this amount be made to this Tribunal?
3. The parties then led their evidence on these issues and by his order dated 5-6-1964, respondent No. 2 decided all these preliminary objections against the petitioner and then proceeded to give his award. The said award was made on 24-12-1964, by which respondent No. 2, on item No. (a) held as follows :-
-
"The workmen were clearly entitled to be paid wages at the rate fixed by the Government by their notification and the Committee should have paid them irrespective of a demand by them. I would, therefore, hold that the workmen are entitled to compensation for non-payment of the revised rates of minimum wage fixed by the Government notification. The management will now pay them the difference of wages between the rates at which they were paid and the rates fixed by the Government. All the workmen mentioned in the lists A-1 and A-2 with the exception to those mentioned in Ex. R. W. 1/1 and R. W. 1/2 will be paid the aforesaid wages within three months from the date of the publication of this award in the Official Gazette."
The finding on item No. (b) was :-
- "The Octroi Moharrirs were entitled to weekly rests under Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Punjab Rules . This rule came into force on 15th June, 1961. In these circumstances, I direct the committee to pay to the Octroi Moharrirs extra wages for such days of their weekly rests on which they were made to work between 15th June, 1961, when Rule 23 came into force, to 1st September, 1961, up to which date the workmen claim the same."
This award was published in the Government Gaz
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
