Back
1960 Supreme(All) 70
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. G. Oak, J.
JASWANT SUGAR MILLS LTD., MEERUT CITY - Appellant
Versus
SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MEERUT - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 331 Of 1959
Decided On : 03/24/1960
R.S.PATHAK, S.N.MISRA
Headnote:
MINIMUM WAGES ACT - WEEKLY RESTS - PAYMENT - COMPENSATION - JURISDICTION - AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT - RULES - INTERPRETATION - CLAIMS - SECTION 20 - AMENDMENT - SCOPE - DIRECTIONS - AUTHORITY'S POWERS - FINAL DECISION - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Employees of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. filed applications under the Minimum Wages Act claiming payment in lieu of weekly rests and compensation for the employer's refusal to allow weekly rests. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, acting as the authority under the Act, allowed the claims. The company challenged the decision in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. A single writ petition is maintainable against a number of employees on a common ground. 2. The Minimum Wages Act and Rules provide for weekly holidays with wages. 3. The Authority under the Act has jurisdiction to entertain claims for payment in lieu of weekly rests and compensation. 4. The amended Section 20 of the Act covers claims under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13 of the Act. 5. The Authority can direct payment of compensation for breach of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether a single writ petition is maintainable against a number of employees on a common ground? 2. Whether the Minimum Wages Act and Rules provide for weekly holidays with wages? 3. Whether the Authority under the Act has jurisdiction to entertain claims for payment in lieu of weekly rests and compensation? 4. Whether the amended Section 20 of the Act covers claims under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13 of the Act? 5. Whether the Authority can direct payment of compensation for breach of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A single writ petition is maintainable against a number of employees on a common ground where the decision under consideration governs several cases and the points of law involved are the same. 2. The Minimum Wages Act and Rules provide for weekly holidays with wages. Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Rules lays down that every employee shall have a weekly holiday with wages. 3. The Authority under the Act has jurisdiction to entertain claims for payment in lieu of weekly rests and compensation under Section 20 of the Act. 4. The amended Section 20 of the Act covers claims under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13 of the Act. 5. The Authority can direct payment of compensation for breach of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Rules.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, dated 30-12-1958 was upheld in favor of the nine respondents who were entitled to payment for weekly rests. The order was also upheld in so far as court-fee charges, counsel's fee, witnesses expenses, and compensation were granted to the ten respondents. However, the order was quashed in so far as amounts in lieu of weekly rests were granted to the ten respondents. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a decision of an authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Messrs, Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. , Meerut are the petitioner here.
( 2 ) THE writ petition has arisen under the following circumstances. Several employees of the petitioner filed applications under the Minimum Wages Act. Their case was that, the employer was bound to provide weekly rests to the employees with wages In accordance with Rules made under the Minimum Wages Act. In spite of repeated demands by the employees, the employer refused to allow weekly rests. The employees, therefore, made claims for payments in lieu of weekly rests, and for compensation,
( 3 ) THERE were in all 90 such applications for payment in lieu of weekly rests and compensation. All these claims were opposed by the employer on a variety of grounds. All the pleas raised in defence by the employer were overruled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meerut acting as the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. He passed a consolidated order on 30-12-1958 allowing the various employees certain sums in lieu of weekly rests and Rs. 5/- as compensation in each case. The present petition by Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited, Meerut is directed against the order dated 30-12-1958.
( 4 ) INITIALLY, there were as many as 91 respondents in the writ petition. Several names were repeated. By a subsequent amendment, the number of the respondents has now been reduced to 20. Respondent No. 1 is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meerut sitting as the Authority under the minimum Wages Act. The remaining 19 respondents are the employees who succeeded before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act.
( 5 ) MR. S. N. Misra appearing for the employees raised a preliminary objection that, a single writ petition against a number of employees is not maintainable. He further pointed out that, there were as many as 90 cases before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It was, therefore, urged by Mr. Misra that, a single writ petition challenging the decision in 90 cases is not maintainable.
( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed upon a decision by a Division Bench of this Court reported in umashankar Roy v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Lucknow, 1959 All WR (HC)664: (AIR 1960 All 366 ). It was held in that case that, a writ petition-can be filed only by one, unless the rights of different claimants were joint and inseparable. In case of a common right it is not open to the persons who are affected by a common order to file a joint writ petition. In that case four persons filed a joint writ petition on a common ground. It was held by the learned judges that, a single writ petition by the (our persons was not maintainable.
( 7 ) IN Umashankar Roys case, 1959 All WR (HC) 664 : (AIR 1960 All 366) there was a single writ petition by four persons. In the present case Messrs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited are the sole petitioner. It is true that there are several respondents in the case. But there is only one petitioner. So the circumstances of the present case are the reverse of those, which obtained in umashankar Roys case, 1959 All WR (HC) 664 : (AIR 1960 All 366 ). No authority was brought to my notice to the effect that, one person cannot file one writ petition against a number of persons on a common ground.
( 8 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30-12-1958 passed by the Sub Divisional magistrate, Meerut. The same order is to govern all the cases before the authority. If this decision dated 30-12-1958 is quashed, such an order will automatically govern all the connected cases. This is a petition for a writ in the nature of certiorari. It is directed against a certain decision by a Tribunal. I do not see any difficulty in entertaining this petition, although the decision under consideration governs several cases. The points of law involved in all these cases are the same. It will, therefore be convenient to dispose of all these c
