Indu Shekhar Jha vs The State of Jharkhand

Since the sole petitioner raises common grievance of the workers in each of the

respective writ petitions against rejection of their claim for payment of arrears of

wages under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act including compensation in lieu of

less payment of wages against the Respondent M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. (herein-

after referred to as ''Company'') being aggrieved by the separate orders of the same date

22.09.2015 passed in the respective claim applications, they have been heard together

and are being decided by this common judgment. Petitioner in all these writ petitions

claims to represent the interest of workers said to be working under the Respondent

Company.

In WPL No. 5863/2015, 104 persons had raised claim for payment of wages

and compensation vide claim application no. 9/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Kujam of Respondent Company in

the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for

above ground work.

In WPL No. 5864/2015, 96 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and

compensation vide claim application no. 6/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Serengdag-B of Respondent

Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day

wages for above ground work.

In WPL No. 5866/2015, 20 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and

compensation vide claim application no. 8/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Serengdag-A of Respondent

Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day

wages for above ground work.

In WPL No. 5873/2015, 140 persons had raised claim for payment of wages

and compensation vide claim application no. 11/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Amtipani of Respondent Company

in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for

above ground work.

In WPL No. 5884/2015, 49 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and

compensation vide claim application no. 10/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Jalim/Sanai of Respondent

Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day

wages for above ground work.

In WPL No. 5865/2015, 32 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and

compensation vide claim application no. 7/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Serengdag-B of Respondent

Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day

wages for above ground work.

In WPL No. 5881/2015, 67 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and

compensation vide claim application no. 5/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under

the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they

have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Kujam of Respondent Company in

the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for

above ground work.

All these persons claim minimum wages @ Rs. 324/- per days which is fixed

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for schedule employment for mining of bauxite

mine ''below ground''. They have claimed difference of wages as computed by them in

separate claim application i.e. 10 times of compensation for the period 01.01.2012 to

31.12.2012.

In all these cases, Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cum

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, has come to a finding against the

applicant on four issues inter-alia, (i) whether the mines in question is ''above ground''

or ''below ground'' mine, (ii) whether the applicants / claimants have been directly

employed by the Respondent Company, (iii) whether they are still employed directly

by the Respondent Company or not, and (iv) whether the delay in filing the claim

application after one year of the period of limitation under the Minimum Wages Act,

is fit to be condoned or not?

Learned Authority in exercise of its power under section 20(7) of the Act of

1948, issued notices to the contractors in the respective applications, who appeared

and disputed the claim of the applicants in each of the respective applications. The

Management on its part, had taken the plea of limitation as the respective applications

were presented after the period of one year. They had contended that the Respondent

Company has undertaken mining operation with the permission of the Director

General, Mines Safety in respect of mineral bauxite in the State of Jharkhand through

raising contracts. They also took the plea that none of the persons were directly

employed by the Company and no proof of employment such as Form-B,

Employment Card, Wage Slip, Attendance Register, etc were adduced. They also

contended that mines in question are open cast mines operating for long with the

permission of DGMS under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of

India. But none of the applicants have substantiated their contention that they are

working directly under the Respondent Company in ''below ground'' mine by any

documentary proof such as, Wage Slip, Employment Card, Form-B, etc. No other

documents were adduced by the applicants to substantiate their contention that the

respective mines such as Kujam, Serengdang-A & B mines, etc. are below ground

mines.

Learned Authority has, upon consideration of the first issue, taken note of the

Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment dated

20.05.2009 i.e. a person working or employed in or in connection with a mine is said

to be working or employed "below ground" if he is working or employed in an open

cast working in which the depth of the excavation measured from its highest to its

lowest point exceeds six meters, and held that none of the recognized union or

registered trade union have ever disputed the status of the mine. Mines are operated

with the permission of DGMS, Ranchi region and as such, applicants have failed to

establish that it is not an open cast mine in which excavation is being done at the

lowest point which exceeds 06 meter.

Learned Authority also came to a finding against the applicants on the second

issue as no iota of proof in any manner was produced before it to substantiate their

claim that they were employed directly under the Respondent Company. It also held

that the Respondent Company had never claimed that they are still on the roll of the

Company. If that be so, applicants have never approached the Authority under the law

any time earlier for compensation or reinstatement, etc. Lastly, having held as above,

on all the three issues, Learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi

came to a finding that applicants have raised imaginary claim devoid of merit,

therefore, there is no question of condonation of delay for preferring these

applications. Applications were accordingly disallowed by the separate orders of the

same date 22.09.2015, impugned in the respective writ petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made serious efforts to dislodge the

findings of the Authority. However, as is apparent, applicants have failed to produce

any chit of documents to substantiate their claim of employment under the

Respondent Company in any such mines. Even on the issue whether mines were

''above ground'' or ''below ground'' or not, applicants have failed to produce any material

evidence, documentary or otherwise to dispel the findings of the Authority that these

mines are open cast mines. Despite the fact that the applicants had not impleaded any

of the contractors, the Authority exercising its power under section 20(7) of the Act of

1948, has noticed the contractor concerned in each of the cases who have appeared

and strongly denied the case of the applicants for such wages @ Rs. 324/- per day

applicable under the ''below ground'' mines.

Consideration of these relevant attendant material facts and the submissions of

the parties, lead to the conclusion that none of the findings recorded by the Authority

suffers from errors of fact or in law or from perversity calling for interference under

Article 226 of Constitution of India. If the claims were wholly unsubstantiated by any

cogent and relevant material evidence, Learned Authority was wholly justified in

rejecting these claim applications by the impugned orders. Writ petitions are therefore

devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.