IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P.No.38005 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

2.The Conservator of Forests, Erode Circle, Roja Nagar, Veerappansathiram, Erode – 636 004.

3.The District Forest Officer, Namakkal Forest Division, Namakkal – 637 001. ... Petitioners Vs.

1.Rathinam

2.Jayanthi 3.Malathi

4.Santhi

5.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (The Tribunal Constituted under the Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act,)

Salem. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 5^th respondent in M.W.No.90 of 2009 dated 05.01.2015 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate (Forests)

For Respondents : No appearance [R1 to R4]

Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader [R5]

*****

ORDER

The petitioners impugned an order passed by the 2^nd respondent directing the petitioners to pay to the respondents 1 to 4 the difference amount of wages as payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. The issue is no longer res-integra in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2011 in W.P.No.24601 of 2005 etc. and batch. In the said order the learned Single Judge has rejected the similar contentions raised by the petitioners therein. The said order was taken on appeal.

3. The learned first Bench vide its order dated 17.10.2012 in W.A.No.2183 of 2012 etc. and batch confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeals. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder :

''7. It is seen that the primary ground on which the challenge to the fixation of minimum wages was on the ground that the authority under the Act condoned the enormous delay in filing such applications. The learned Single Judge after referring to the earlier decision of this Court rightly held that the objection as regards the delay was not sustainable and has no merits. The learned Single Judge after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore vs. The State of Mysore and another, 1970 2 LLJ 408, held that the main object of the Act is to prevent sweated labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour and it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that there is no distinction between private employer and the Government employer in the matter of payment of minimum wages.

8. The other contention that the workmen having been paid consolidated wages, cannot claim anything extra was also rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. In the batch of writ petitions filed challenging the award of the Labour Court which was regarding the non-employment of social forestry workers, the learned Single Judge after taking note of the findings recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph 15 of the award, in which findings of fact were recorded held that the workmen were terminated from their services and the conditions precedent under Section 25F of the I.D. Act were not followed before sending them out of the service, upheld the award.

9. As regards the contention that the appellants were discharging sovereign function and therefore, were excluded from the purview of the I.D. Act, the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the said contention as the earlier award was implemented by the Government. At this stage, we may refer to certain findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions:-

40.If workmen were employed and their services were no longer required by the employer and it was transferred to an another employer, then unless and until their employment is continued on the same terms and conditions by the