Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 729
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
National Health Mission – Appellant
vs.
Surendra Singh Dhakad and Anr. – Respondents
MP 2679 of 2018
Decided On : 29-11-2019
For the petitioner: Shri Sankalp Sharma, Counsel.
For the respondent: Ms. Chitra Bais
The judgment establishes the principle that a principal employer with control and supervision over services provided by a contractor can be held jointly liable for employment-related claims. It also clarifies the application of exemption clauses under the Motor Transport Workers Act.
Headnote:
Minimum Wages Act - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 20(1) - Section 38 of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 - Ambulance Services - Principal Employer - Indemnity Clause
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a health services body, operates Ambulance Services in partnership with respondent no.2. An employee of respondent no.2 filed a claim for overtime under Section 20(1) of Minimum Wages Act, alleging non-payment for extra hours worked.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had control and supervision over the services provided by respondent no.2, making it a principal employer and jointly liable to pay the claimed amount. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the employee was not entitled to overtime based on the Motor Transport Workers Act, as the exemption clause did not apply to the case.
Issues: Employer-employee relationship, entitlement to overtime, application of exemption clause under Motor Transport Workers Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a principal employer, had control and supervision over the services provided by respondent no.2, making it jointly liable for the claimed amount. The court also found that the exemption clause under the Motor Transport Workers Act did not apply to the case.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the order allowing the respondent no.1's claim for overtime under the Minimum Wages Act, dismissing the petitioner's petition.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the Order dated 1-2-2018 passed by Authority Minimum Wages Act in C.O.C./167/D/MWA/2017 by which the claim of the respondent no.1 for overtime has been allowed.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is a body created for providing better health services and assisting the State Authorities in expanding the reach of Medical Health Services in each and every part of the State. Several programmes are being run by the petitioner for the betterment of the health services.
(2) The petitioner also works in close relationship with different private bodies under the “Public Private Partnership” Scheme. Under this Scheme, 108 Ambulance Services, Janani Suraksha Vehicle and Deen Dayal Mobile Hospital are being run across the State of Madhya Pradesh. At present these programmes are being run with an agreement with respondent no.2. It is the case of the petitioner, that direct payment is made to respondent no.2 on per kilometer basis. It is claimed by the petitioner that as per Clause 2.5(b) and 2.5(k) of the Notice Inviting Tender, all the responsibilities arising out of the employment offered by respondent no.2 for providing the services, is the responsibility of the respondent no. 2. As per the agreement, the petitioner has no control or supervision of the services in any manner.
3. The respondent no.1, who claims himself to be an employee of respondent no. 2 and was working as Ambulance Pilot (Driver) had filed an application under Section 20(1) of Minimum Wages Act. It is alleged by the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.2 has taken 12 hours work from him and the payment of only 8 hours was done and for the rest of 4 hours, no payment was made. It was also the case of the respondent no.1 that even the payments were made with delay or some past payments are still pending.
4. After the notices, the respondent no2. was proceeded exparte. However, the petitioner claimed that it has no control or supervision over the respondent no.2 nor does the petitioner has any relationship with the respondent no.2.
5. The Authority, after recording the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent no.1, allowed the claim filed by the respondent no.1 by impugned order.
6. Challenging the impugned order passed by the Authority, Minimum Wages Act, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, that there was no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 was employed by the respondent no.2. The petitioner had no control or supervision over the respondent no.2. Further, it is submitted that no overtime can be paid to the drivers of the Ambulance in the light of Section 13 of Motor Transport Workers Act as held by this Court in the case of Gursharan Singh Brijbhushan Singh Vs. Manager Rewa Transport Services reported in AIR 1968 MP 10. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 20(1) of Minimum Wages Act do not apply as there was no dispute with regard to the rates of Wages, therefore, the application filed by the respondent no.1 was not maintainable. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Town Municipal Council, Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli and others reported in (196) 1 SCC 873, and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Bisen Rajaram and others reported in 1978 JLJ 411, judgment passed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief Warden, National Institute of Technology Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and others reported in 2012 (135) FLR 897 and Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Danteshwari Agencies Vs. Regional Lab. Commissioner (Central) Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Raipur reported in 2018 LabIC 1444.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by the C
