AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.—C.M. No. 2195 of 2014
Application for placing on record Annexures P-3 and P-4 and for exemption from filing certified copies thereof is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 07.11.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar whereby, the application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ''the Act'') filed by respondents No. 2 to 24 has been allowed,
The claim of the workmen, who are 23 in number, was that various amounts were due to them on account of the wages, as per the minimum rate under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short ''the 1948 Act'') and the petitioner-management had not been paying the said amounts and several representations have been made collectively to the management but it did not lead to any fruitful result. A complaint had been made to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab in that respect, which was referred to the Labour inspector, Nawanshahr but the management refused to pay the wages as per the minimum wages. CWP No. 8433 of 2004 was also filed be-fore this Court since termination of the services of the employees was threatened. Services of two of the employees namely Ram Sumer, Mali and Paramjit Kaur, Sweeper were also terminated who were demanding wages at the minimum rates.
In the reply filed, the management took various pleas that the application was not maintainable u/s 33C(2) of the Act and could only be determined u/s 10 of the Act. A settlement had taken place on 26.05.2004 whereby, the salaries of the applicants were fixed at an enhanced rate from 01.04.2004 and the applicants were getting the benefits of the settlement since 1.4.2004. It was also pointed out that the petitioner-college functioned only for about 5 hours and the workmen were working as a part time employees for 5-6 hours daily and could not claim wages for 8 hours. The fact of filing of the writ petition was denied oh the ground that no such copy was received. Regarding the two employees, who were allegedly terminated, it was pleaded that they were daily wage workers and had left on their own and there was no demand from these two workers. The table of the claim filed by the workmen was incorrect and baseless and not admitted and without any basis and the claim made was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following issues:--
Whether the applications are without jurisdiction and not maintainable? OPR
Whether the applicants are estopped to make the applications? OPR
Whether the applications are time barred? OPR
Whether the applicants have got no existing right to make the claim? OPR
Whether the applicants are entitled to the amount claimed? OPA
Relief.
The applications of the said workers were consolidated by the Labour Court vide order dated 18.01.2008 and evidence was recorded in the case of Vijay Kumar. The workman examined Major Singh as AW1 whereas Dev Raj was examined as RW1, Gaurav Sharda as RW2, Pardeep Chaudhary as MW3 and Kulwaran Singh as MW4 by the petitioner management.
A finding was recorded that there was a relationship of employer-employee between the parties and the petitioner-institute was covered under the provisions of the Act and could not escape from its statutory liability. The workman had produced sufficient, material on record which included the orders of the Principal of the institute showing the working hours of staff, which was more than 8 hours and the attendance register also depicted the working hours of various officials. Therefore, the plea that the applicants were working for 5-6 hours was rejected. Document Ex. AW1/23 whereby, the minimum wages were revised from time to time was taken into consideration and the fact that the respondent-institute was ready to make payment in accordance with the minimum wages prescribed by the law, as per the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jalandhar dated 20.09.2004. It was also noticed that the management itself incorporated the fact that enhanced rates were being paid to the non-teaching staff w.e.f. 1.4.2004 but arrears were not being given prior to that. Accordingly, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there could not be any estoppel against the Statute and the management was bound to pay the minimum wages. The settlement dated 26.05.2004 did not disclose that the workmen had left their right of arrears prior to that and that they were satisfied with the proposed enhancement w.e.f. 1.4.2004. A notification issued by the Government and the revision was taker) into consideration and it was noticed that in view of the fact that after 1.4.2004, the workmen had been given the minimum wages, would also entitle the said workmen to claim for the period prior to that and accordingly, it was held that the workmen had a right to make the claim and the applicants were entitled to the amount claimed under issues No. 4 and 5. The submission of the petitioner-management that the applications were without jurisdiction and not maintainable u/s 33C(2) of the Act was rejected and the issue of estoppel also was decided against the petitioner: management. Similarly, on the issue of the application being time barred, it was held that there is no limitation provided under the Act to file an application u/s 33C(2) and reliance was placed upon various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. Accordingly, the applicants were held entitled to the said amount alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that once the settlement had been arrived at inter se the parties, the workmen were not entitled to claim the said amount from the date prior to 01.04.2004.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the said submission is without any basis. The workmen''s right to claim the minimum wages is provided under the 1948 Act, Section 25 of the said Act provides that any contract or agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby the employee''s rights are relinquished or reduced shall be void. Section 25 of the 1948 Act reads thus:--
Contracting out--Any contract or agreement, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby an employee either relinquishes or reduces his right to a minimum rate of wages or any privilege or concession accruing to him under this Act shall be null and void insofar as it purports to reduce the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act.
In view of the statutory protection, the alleged settlement dated 26.5.2004, which has not even been placed on record before this Court, would be without any basis and would not bind down the workmen from claiming their statutory dues. Admittedly, the management itself has paid the amount from 1.4.2004 being well-aware that there was a statutory obligation to pay the same. The application u/s 33C(2) claiming the balance amount were filed on 6.12.2004, immediately thereafter and, therefore, cannot be held to be time barred in any manner. It is an admitted position that inter se the matter was being agitated and once it was finalized that the management was to pay from 1.4.2004, the applications were filed thereafter and cannot be held to be barred by limitation. The Labour Court has rightly held that there is no limitation prescribed u/s 33C(2) of the Act and in the present facts and circumstances of the case especially, since the matter was still pending inter se the parties and, therefore, the claim for 1998 could not be held to be barred, as contended by counsel for the management. The submission that the application u/s 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable is also without any basis. Admittedly, the rights are under the Statute and, therefore, are pre-existing rights and, therefore, it cannot be said that the application u/s 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Argument of counsel for the petitioner that amount was claimed twice for the same period in the table is also without any basis. The reply given by the management has already been, discussed above. The chart was never disputed before the Labour Court and in the written statement filed by the management, no such plea was raised regarding the claim of the wages twice. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the order of the Labour Court is well reasoned and this Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed and there is no scope for interference in the present case and the writ petition stands dismissed in limine.