Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, J.
Bijoy Biswas, son of late Ashiwini Biswas and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.1559, 1560, 1561, 1562, 1700, 1244 of 2017 & 17 of 2018
Decided On : 28-09-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Adv., Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv., Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Chowdhury, G.A., Mr. D. Sarkar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate government has the power to determine the minimum wage and to discontinue or not adopt the wages for time rate or minimum time rate. The court also emphasized that the respondents' actions were unconstitutional and amounted to forced labor, in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Minimum Wages Act - Forced Labour - Section 3, Section 2A - The court held that the appropriate government has the power to determine the minimum wage and to discontinue or not adopt the wages for time rate or minimum time rate. The appropriate government's decision to discontinue the piece rate system was upheld, and the respondents were directed to comply with the notifications abolishing the piece rate system and fixing the minimum wages for loading and unloading workers. The court emphasized that the respondents' actions were unconstitutional and amounted to forced labor, and ordered the abolition of the piece rate system and the implementation of the minimum wage as per the relevant notifications.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions raised the question of whether the respondents could defy the notifications issued by the appropriate government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which abolished the piece rate system and fixed minimum wages for loading and unloading workers. The petitioners, aggrieved by the continuation of the piece rate system, approached the court for direction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' actions were unconstitutional and amounted to forced labor, in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate government's decision to discontinue the piece rate system was upheld, and the respondents were directed to comply with the notifications abolishing the piece rate system and fixing the minimum wages for loading and unloading workers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents could defy the notifications issued by the appropriate government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which abolished the piece rate system and fixed minimum wages for loading and unloading workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriate government has the power to determine the minimum wage and to discontinue or not adopt the wages for time rate or minimum time rate. The respondents' actions were found to be unconstitutional and amounted to forced labor, and the appropriate government's decision to discontinue the piece rate system was upheld.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to abolish the piece rate system and implement the minimum wage as per the relevant notifications. The petitioners were given the liberty to approach the Labour Department for punitive actions against the respondents if the notifications were not complied with.
Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Mr. A. Bhattacharya and Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1559 of 2017 [Bijoy Biswas vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1560 of 2017 [Prabir Baishya and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.1561 of 2017 [Gouranga Paul and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1562 of 2017 [Anath Shil and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1700 of 2017 [Hiranmoy Dey and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.17 of 2018 [Uttam Debbarma and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.1244 of 2017 [Abdul Razzak and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] are combined for disposal by a common judgment as the common questions of law wade through all the writ petitions.
3. The basic question that has been raised in all these writ petitions is that whether the respondents can defy the notification No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/4640-56 dated 22.03.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1559 of 2017] and the notification No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/9176- 83 dated 23.06.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1244 of 2017 issued by the appropriate government as defined under Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 defines ‘appropriate government’ as follows:
“(i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the [Central Government or a railway administration], or in relation to a mine, oil-field or major port, or any corporation established by [a Central Act], the Central Government, and
(ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the [State Government].”
4. There is no dispute that the appropriate government is authorized to fix the minimum wage under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section-3 of the said act cast duty on the appropriate government to fix the minimum rate of wage payable to the employees, employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment of the said Act by notification under section 27 it has been provided that the appropriate Government may, in respect of employees employed in an employment specified in Part II of the Schedule, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this clause for the whole State, fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof. The appropriate government can also review at such intervals, as it may think fit, such intervals not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates, if necessary provided that where for any reason the appropriate Government has not reviewed the minimum rates of wages fixed by it in respect of any scheduled employment within any interval of five years, nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to prevent it from reviewing them, if necessary, and until they are so revised the minimum rates in force immediately before the expiry of the said period of five years shall continue in force. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment, but if any time, the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such inquiry, as it may make or cause to be made in this behalf, that the number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages, payable to employees in such employment as soon as may be after such
