AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner Management has challenged the award, passed by the learned Labour Court, Tirunelveli, vide which,
the reference stands ordered in favour of the workmen.
The Respondent workmen, were employed by the Petitioner, on daily wages. Under the statutory settlement, entered with the 1st Respondent
workmen, in the year 1992, the minimum wages payable were fixed at Rs. 28/- [Rupees Twenty eight only] per day for male workers and Rs.
26/- [Rupees Twenty six only] per day for female workers.
On 1.04.1993, the Petitioner Management reduced wages to Rs. 24.90/- for men and Rs. 22.90/- for female, to bring it, in consonance with the
Minimum Wages Act.
The workmen, being aggrieved by the reduction of their wages, sought reference of dispute to the Labour Court. The reference stands
answered in favour of the Petitioner, by learned Labour Court holding that the reduction of the wages was in violation of section 9(a) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, as admittedly, No. notice was issued to the workmen before reducing their wages.
The learned Labour Court, vide impugned award, has directed the Management to pay the wages, at the rate of Rs. 28/- for men and Rs. 26/-
for female, with effect from 1.4.1993.
The Petitioner challenged the impugned award on the ground, that the learned Labour Court, committed an error in answering the reference in
favour of the Petitioner, by ignoring the notification issued by the Government, under the Minimum Wages Act 1960, which fixed the minimum
wages of male workmen at Rs. 24.90/- and the female workmen at Rs. 22.90/-.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, deserves to be rejected for more than one ground.
(i)The learned Labour court, was right in rejecting the stand of the Petitioner, as admittedly the reduction in wages was against the statutory
provision of Section 9 (a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, as No. notice was issued before reducing the wages of the workers.
(ii)Employer cannot reduce the wages of the employees, engaged by it, merely because under the Minimum Wages Act, wages fixed are lesser
than that are being paid to the workers, as it is always open to the employer to pay higher salary, than the minimum wages fixed, by the
Government. The law only stipulates, that the workers cannot be paid less salary, than the minimum wages, fixed by the Government under the
Minimum Wages Act.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contented, that the reference was not competent, having been raised after four years. This contention
on the face of it, is misconceived, as No. limitation is prescribed, under the Industrial Dispute Act, to seek reference.
For the reasons stated, No. ground is made out to interfere with the award, passed by the learned Labour court. ""Dismissed"". No. costs.