Dismissed

Shree Marwari Seva Sangh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019SPLAD/121/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal by registered society challenging revision of minimum wage notification that omitted their previously granted exemption. The High Court held exemption is a matter of policy, withdrawal is permissible, and no merit is found in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as there was no merit in challenging the revision of the minimum wages notification.

Shree Marwari Seva Sangh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 121 of 2009 Appellant :- Shree Marwari Seva Sangh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Tripathi,Amitabh Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶6

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952) has arisen from judgment dated 22.08.2008 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing appellant's Writ Petition No.43367 of 2000.

¶7

Appellant Shree Marwari Seva Sangh (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860”) vide Registration Certificate no.1462 of 2006 dated 06.03.2006, which has been renewed from time to time. As per bye laws of society its basic purpose is to serve the society in accordance with religious temperament of Sanatan Dharm and to boost spiritual strength of public at large consistent with ancient Indian culture. The kinds of service narrated in bye laws includes provision for food to saints, poor, Brahmins, Students and other disabled and poor persons; help difficult conditions like flood and other natural disasters etc, to make arrangement for religious functions and festivals and for that purpose arrange camps to provide medical services to the people securing from various assets free of cost and for that purpose construction of hospital etc; provide education facilities and residential facilities etc. It has been granted exemption under Section 80-G(5)(VI) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1961”) by Commissioner of Income Tax, Varanasi. Notification was issued on 30.12.1994 under Section 4 (1) (3) read with Section 3 (1) (a) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1948”) by Government of U. P. determining minimum rates in respect to employees employed in Dharmshala, who are serving

¶8

-2-

¶9

free of cost or charging Rs.5/- per day. Another notification was issued on 04.02.2000 under Section 5 (1) (b) of Act, 1948 in exercise of power under Section 3 (1) read with Section 4 (1) of said Act, whereby the rates of minimum wages have been proposed to be revised in respect to 26 Schedule Employment as specified in Appendix-1 of said notification, but therein exemption granted to Dharmshalas which are functioning free of cost or charging Rs.5 per day as mentioned in the notification dated 31.12.1994 has been omitted.

¶10

It was challenged on the ground that notification dated 04.02.2000 is proposal of revision of rates of minimum wages for Schedule Employment which was earlier contained in notification dated 30.12.1994 hence in substance, nature of establishment could not have been altered and exemption already granted could not have been taken away. In this regard parity was claimed in respect of Scheduled Employment namely Private Coaching Classes and Private Schools including Nursery Schools and Private Technical Institutions which excluded following class of schools namely Madrasa, Private Institution run by religious or charitable institution etc. This exemption was mentioned in Notification dated 31.01.1991 and has been continued in Notification dated 04.02.2000 but in respect to Dharmshalas, exemption has been taken away.

¶11

Fixation of minimum wages is for the purpose of ensuring payment of such minimum wages as are necessary for survival of workmen employed in any Schedule employment whether it is earning porift or charitable. It cannot be said that Dharmshala or religious institution has any fundamental right to exploit its employees and pay whatever amount it thinks fit, which is not even sufficient for their bare survival. Exemption, in the matter of minimum wages is a matter of policy and unless it is shown that an exemption withdrawn or not allowed by Legislative body is per se arbitrary or contrary to statutory provisions, no judicial review is permissible.

¶12

We find no reason to interfere. Learned Single Judge has rightly

¶13

-3-

¶14

declined to interfere in writ petition filed by appellant and we find no manifest error in the said view taken by learned Single Judge.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta, 2005 (2) SCC 271 and Nagar Palika Nigam Vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and others, 2008 (12) SCC 364 . He has placed reliance on paras 13, 14, 15 and 16 in the judgment of Nath Devi (supra) , paras 16 and 17 in judgment of Nagar Palika Nigam (supra) . Observations made in aforesaid paragraphs of two judgments relates to principles of interpretation of Statutes in which Court has clearly held that Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. They have to be given plain meaning instead of consequence. We do not find application of aforesaid judgments in the case in hand, inasmuch as, claim of petitioner is to maintain exemption granted in favour of a society vide Notification dated 31.12.1994 which has been omitted while revising minimum wages by notification dated 04.02.2000. Such exemption cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In any case, aforesaid notification is only a proposal and not a final notification, therefore, also even otherwise no interference is needed at this stage. As we have already said considering the objective of statute of minimum wages which is for the benefit of employees employed in establishment and to ensure at least minimum sustainable wages payable to them, the nature of establishment, is irrelevant and if some exemption has been granted in the legislative functioning by the State while including employment in Schedule there cannot be an estoppel or acquiescence so that State cannot change its policy by taking away such exemption.

¶16

We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed accordingly.

¶17

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶18

Order Date : 25.04.2019 Manish Himwan

¶19

Court No. - 34

¶20

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 121 of 2009

¶21

Appellant :- Shree Marwari Seva Sangh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Tripathi,Amitabh Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶22

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

¶23

Ref : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.36536 of 2008

¶24