AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Commissioner, Kadambathur Panchayat Union and the President of Pudhumavilangai Panchayat are the Petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, the Labour Court in C.P. No. 76 of 1998 dated 13.10.2003, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
The Writ Petition was admitted on 19.3.2005 and interim stay was also granted. Though the 1st Respondent was served, there is no appearance on behalf of the 1st Respondent. It is also brought on record that when the earlier ex parte order in the same Claim Petition was set aside, as a condition precedent, the Labour Court directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 40,000/-to the credit of Claim Petition and the same was done by the 2nd Petitioner and Rs. 40,000/-is lying in deposit with the 2nd Respondent Labour Court.
The 1st Respondent''s husband one Balakrishnan had worked as a Pumpset Operator and he died on 13.7.1994. After his death, the 1st Respondent with the assistance of trade union filed a Claim Petition before the Labour Court u/s 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs. 1,04,194.40. The claim related to the amounts are set out in paragraph 2, which reads as follows:
i) Differential minimum wages for the period from1.1.1977 to 30.6.1994 totaling a sum ofRs.40,244.40
ii) Family benefit fund of Rs. 60,000/- and
iii) Bonus amount of Rs. 3,950/-for the period from 1985-1986 to 1993-1994.
The said claim statement was taken on file as C.P. No. 76 of 1998. The 2nd Petitioner Panchayat filed a counter statement dated ''nil'' (June 2003) resisting the claim. The contention that he was employed by the Panchayat union was denied. It was stated that as per work under the 2nd Respondent Panchayat from 1.7.1977 to30.61994. It is also stated that G.O. Ms. No. 449 dated6.6.1977 will not apply. Since the claims were not preexisting right, the maintainability of the Claim Petition was doubtful.
Before the Labour Court, the 1st Respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and on her side 20 documents were filed and marked as Ex.P.1 to P.20. On the side of the 2nd Petitioner, one Nagarathinam was examined as R.W.1. The Labour Court on the analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the workman is eligible for minimum wages and it computed the amount of Rs. 40,244.40. With reference to family benefit fund, as the said Balakrishnan was not the Government servant, he is not eligible for Rs. 60,000/as family benefit fund. As per G.O. Ms. No. 284, Finance Pension dated 6.4.1985, the local body employees are entitled for Rs. 40,000/-. Therefore, he is eligible forRs.40,000/-. With reference to the ex-gratia, the Labour Court computed Rs. 3950/-as ex-gratia for the year 1985-86to 1993-94. Altogether, the Labour Court computedRs.84,194.40. Challenging this order, the Writ Petition came to be filed.
The contentions raised by the Petitioners was that the claim being minimum wages are to be filed before the minimum wages authority u/s 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act. If any case is filed u/s 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, there is a limitation provided under the said Act. Therefore, a general provision u/s 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot apply for claiming minimum wages. In respect of the family benefit fund, it is stated that there is no subscription deducted from the salary of the 1st Respondent''s husband and the claim made is illegal. Similarly the provision for exgratia payment will also not apply.
With reference to the last two contentions, namely, payment of ex-gratia and also the family benefit fund, the contentions raised are well founded. Since there is no exgratia scheme provided for lump sum payment and no subscription being deducted from the salary of late Balakrishnan, the Labour Court ought not to have computed the said amount as there is no pre-existing right between the Petitioners and the employees. The claims ofRs.40000/-for family benefit fund and ex-gratia of Rs. 3950are clearly impermissible.
With reference to the minimum wages claim, there is no legal bar in claiming the minimum wages. Even under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act u/s 33C(2), the Bombay High Court in Municipal Corporation v. D.B. Pradhan and Ors. reported in 1959 FJR 172 as well as Gujarat High Court in R.L. Kalathia and Co., Bhavnagar Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, held that the claim u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is neither impliedly nor expressly excluded merely because Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act is applicable. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners regarding the maintainability of the Claim Petition is rejected.
Further, the 1st Respondent workman pleaded before the Labour Court that as per G.O. Ms. No. 449, Labour and Employment Department dated 6.6.1977, in respect of the employees in local bodies, minimum wage has been fixed by the State Government. In respect of Skilled Worker GradeI, basic pay of Rs. 150/-and DA of Rs. 93.60 has been fixed under the said Notification. The Labour Court placed reliance upon the minimum wage notification in arriving at the unpaid wages fixed for the 1st Respondent''s husband. This Court is not inclined to interfere with that portion of the order wherein approximately Rs. 40,000/- has been computed in favor of the 1st Respondent.
Hence, the claims relating to family benefit and ex-gratia are set aside. The claim relating to unpaid minimum wages is upheld. In the light of the benefit relating to minimum wages has been retained and the amount has already been deposited by the 2nd Petitioner, there is no impediment for the 1st Respondent to withdraw the said amount. The 1st Respondent is not before this Court either in person or by counsel. Therefore, this Court directs the 2nd Petitioner, namely the President of Pudhumavilangai Panchayat, Kadambathur Post, Thiruvallur District to send for the 1st Respondent and help her to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the Labour Court. With this direction, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.