Sarovar Hotels Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.

Affidavits-in-opposition are filed. Order dated 17th November, 2017 made by the authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been impugned in

this writ petition. It appears, 41 persons doing contract labour have claimed application of the Act for realization of differential wages for work done

during the period with effect from 18th November, 2016 to 18th August, 2017.

Mr. Mazumdar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the issue regarding payment of arrears has been resolved by

memorandum of settlement dated 28th May, 2018 subsequent to filing of this writ petition. He submits, this memorandum of settlement is valid and

legal. It is a settlement out of Court. Hence, the writ petition should be disposed of in terms thereof.

Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondents, the workmen and submits, his clients have put their signatures on this

memorandum of settlement. On query from Court regarding whether there has been any contracting out, he submits in the negative. Mr. Chatterjee,

learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and submits, his clients were not taken into confidence regarding the settlement. He

brings to notice section 25 of the Act regarding contracting out. He disputes that there has not been contracting out.

Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 45 and submits, disposal of this writ petition on concession should not, in

any way, impede his client’s right to challenge the said order, if so advised. In the said memorandum the parties constitute 41 workmen who were

there before the authority. Recital clause 5 mentions awarded amount. Other clauses say that a sum of Rs. 16,26,183/was deposited by petitioner with

Registrar General of this Court.

Private respondents being third parties had approached petitioner for amicable settlement so that work may not suffer and their right to livelihood may

be protected. After protracted negotiations the disputes and differences have been settled on the terms stated. Inter alia, petitioner had agreed thereby

to pay arrear differential minimum wages for the months from November, 2017 to February, 2018 as modification of contract between petitioner and

the contractor. The disbursement procedure had also been agreed upon.

The workmen are employed under a contractor. They have put their signatures on the memorandum, which is between petitioner, the contractor and

themselves. Petitioner has agreed to modify the contract by an upward revision to which both contractor and workmen have agreed. The recital

makes it appear to Court that contents of impugned order parties to the memorandum were alive to. Nothing has been shown to this Court, as

appearing from the agreement, by at least private respondents that they have either relinquished or reduced their claim.

Copy of memorandum given to Court was made over to Mr. Chatterjee for quick perusal as might be possible during the course of hearing. He points

out from recital clause 5 that Central Government rates on and from March, 2018 are being applied and same will continue as part of the agreed terms

of service of the private respondents, irrespective of subsequent minimum rates of wages for unskilled category of employees in the scheduled

employment notified/declared by State Government to be more than rates declared/notified by Central Government.

On query from Court he submits, at present Central Government rates are higher. That is the rate applied in the impugned order. It is also the rate at

which the settlement has been made. On further query he submits, there is no provision in the Act providing for higher declared rate, whether of State

or Central Government, to be applicable. As such this Court does not find there has been contracting out. The higher rate declared by Central

Government is what has been applied for the settlement. Private respondents have agreed that subsequently if State Government notifies a higher rate

they would be still bound by Central rates. They are free to have and did it.

Respondent no. 45 might challenge the award, if so advised and such challenge will be, if maintainable in law, accordingly decided. List on 26th June,

2018 under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’ as serial no. 1 for compliance report effecting settlement for directions to be made regarding

release of money deposited by petitioner with Registrar General.