Disposed

Shramajivi Kamgar Rayat Sanghatana through Aaradhya Vivek Pandit v. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Nov 2018WP/3702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, via a writ petition, directed the State Government to decide within six weeks whether minimum wages for government institutions should apply to contract workers in a municipal corporation's transport undertaking.

What did the court decide?

State Government directed to take appropriate decision within six weeks.

Shramajivi Kamgar Rayat Sanghatana through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp-3702.18.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2018

¶5

Shramajivi Kamgar Rayat Sanghatana … Petitioner Vs. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Kishor Shrirang Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Amol Bavare I/by Pragnya Legal for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Y.S. Khochare, AGP for the Respondent – State. Mr. D.Y. Dange, Desk Officer, Labour Department, present in person.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 30^th NOVEMBER 2018.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned AGP for the third respondent. The petitioner represents the persons who have been appointed through the second respondent contractor to work as Drivers and Conductors under the Transport undertaking run by the first respondent – Municipal Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is that though the transport undertaking is run by the first respondent - Municipal Corporation, there is disparity in minimum wages applicable to the contract employees employed by the transport undertaking and the transport employees which are employed in other sections of the first

¶10

1 of 3

¶11

2 wp-3702.18.docx

¶12

respondent – Municipal Corporation. Perhaps, the view taken by the first respondent was that in view of notification dated 20^th July 2010 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of section 5 read with sub-section (1)(B) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the concerned employees will have to be treated as employed in a public motor transport.

¶13

2 On 10^th March 2017, the Commissioner of Labour of the State Government addressed a letter to the Member Secretary of the Industries, Energies and Labour Department of the Government of Maharashtra in which he opined that the rate of minimum wages which is applicable to Government institutions (including Village Panchayats) under the notification dated 25^th April 2007 should be made applicable to contract workers in transport undertaking of the first respondent. That is the view expressed in the said letter dated 10^th March 2017. After expressing the said view, the Commissioner of Labour sought guidance from the State Government.

¶14

3 The learned AGP produced for perusal of the Court, a note prepared by the Industries, Energy and Labour Department. He stated that perhaps due to conflicting opinions received by the State Government, the decision has not been taken on the basis of the communication dated 10^th March 2017 issued by the Commissioner of Labour.

¶15

4 The learned AGP states that appropriate decision will be taken by the State Government within a period of six weeks from today.

¶16

2 of 3

¶17

3 wp-3702.18.docx

¶18

He makes this statement on instructions of Mr. D.Y. Dange, Desk Officer, Labour Department.

¶19

5 Though we are not deciding the issue of applicability of the Government Resolutions dated 20^th July 2010 and 24^th February 2015, we are sure that due weightage will be given by the State Government to the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of Labour.

¶20

6 We, accordingly, direct the State Government to take appropriate decision on the basis of the said communication dated 10^th March 2017 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date on which this order is uploaded.

¶21

7 A copy of the decision taken by the State Government shall be forwarded to the petitioner and the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date on which this decision is taken. The petition is disposed of. All contentions on merits are kept open. All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

¶23

3 of 3

Shramajivi Kamgar Rayat Sanghatana through Aaradhya Vivek Pandit v. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shramajivi Kamgar Rayat Sanghatana through Aaradhya Vivek Pandit v. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raptakos , Brett and Co. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Govt. Pl. and 2 Ors...

Karunkumar Motiram Gajbhiye and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay Electric Workers Union (Bewu) and 4 Others Vs Ashok Sakharam Chavan Ex-President and 7 Others

Sou. Kavita Krushanat Mulik Vs Chief Officer, Wai Nagar Parishad and Ors.

Kanchan Shamrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Vilas S/O. Gowardhan Ghawat Vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate and Ors.