SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(All) 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. K. Tandon, J.
M.L.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
CITY MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW - Respondents
Writ Petn. 247 Of 1958
Decided On : 02/16/1960

Advocates Appeared:
Babu Ram Gir

A claim for arrears of wages not arising out of a dispute regarding the minimum wage payable is not entertainable under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Headnote:

MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 - SECTION 20 - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - ARREARS OF WAGES - CLAIM FOR ARREARS OF WAGES NOT ARISING OUT OF DISPUTE REGARDING MINIMUM WAGE NOT ENTERTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 20.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Government Contractor, was directed by a Magistrate to pay arrears of wages and compensation to his employees under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner challenged the Magistrate's jurisdiction, arguing that there was no dispute regarding the minimum wage payable and that the claim was for arrears of wages not covered by Section 20.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the impugned order as there was never any dispute regarding the minimum wage payable. The court interpreted Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as providing a mechanism for resolving disputes regarding the minimum wage payable, and not for recovering arrears of wages independently of such a dispute.

Issues: Whether a claim for arrears of wages said to be payable by an employer to the employee is entertainable under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the plain meaning and purpose of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 is to give effect to the provision for payment of minimum wage. Proceedings under this Section can be commenced where a dispute exists as regards the rate of wage payable. In such a case the authority concerned will be entitled under Section 20 to require the payment of the difference; but if such a dispute does not exist, it cannot be utilised for recovering the arrears.

Final Decision: The court quashed the Magistrate's order, holding that it was made without jurisdiction.

J. K. TANDON, J.


( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 15-10-1958, passed by Sri Markandey Singh, city Magistrate, Lucknow, in a case started under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The case before him was started on the application of one Sri J. N. Gupta, Labour Inspector, appointed under the said Act. The petitioner, who is a Government Contractor, was the opposite party. It was pointed out that the petitioner here, the opposite party in proceedings before the learned Magistrate, had not paid the wages to his employees within 7 days of their falling due. The amount payable by him to the labourers was reported to be Rs. 821/14/ -. The petitioner disputed his liability for the amount pointing out that none of the persons except one Babu Lal to whom the arrears were said to be due, had ever worked under him. In the case of Babu Lal the justification put forward was that his work was unsatisfactory. A significant fact and with which this petition will be directly concerned is that there was no dispute as regards the rate of wages payable to the several employees. The question before the magistrate merely was whether a certain set of persons had worked as employees of the petitioner and, therefore, were entitled to be paid their wages also. The difference in thecase of babu Lal which differed from the case of the remaining employees again was whether he was entitled to the wage asked by him because his work had not been found to be satisfactory. The learned Magistrate framed the following four issues: 1. Whether the O. P. was liable to pay the wages to the workers whose names are mentioned in para 4 of the application?

( 2 ) TO what wages, if any, are these workers entitled?

( 3 ) TO what compensation, if any, are the workers entitled?

( 4 ) TO what relief, if any are the workers entitled? while discussing the first three issues he referred to the evidence of certain persons including the report of the Labour Inspector on the basis of which he held that the persons reported by the labour Inspector had worked as employees of the petitioner and the wages or rather the arrears of wages asked by them were due. He also held that a sum of Rs. 50/-was payable as compensation. In the end, therefore, he passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 821/14/- to the workers as arrears of their wages and Rs. 50/- as compensation within a period of fifteen days. 2. By the present petition the petitioner has impugned the above proceedings before the learned magistrate on the ground, broadly stated, that the Minimum Wages Act failed to confer any such jurisdiction on the Magistrate who, therefore, was incompetent to make the order in question. A survey of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, would point out, as the preamble thereto has also stated, that it was an Act to provide for the fixing of minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 2 has defined certain expressions including an "employer" and "scheduled employment". The term "wages" too has been defined and likewise the expression "employee". The next Section gives power to the appropriate Government to fix minimum rates of wages which it can do in the case of employments specified in the schedules which are part of the Act. The minimum wages can be fixed with reference to hour, day and month or any larger period as should be prescribed. Section 4 describes what the minimum rate of wage shall consist ot. In section 5 the procedure for fixing and revising the wages is laid down and the next few sections lay down the establishment of Advisory Board etc. to advise the Government in relation to its duties under the Act. The next relevant Section is 12 which says that where in respect of any scheduled employment a notification under Section 5 is in force, the employer shall pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled employment under him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed for the particular employment. Section 13 is









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top