Hingangaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. through Chairman vs Salim Yasin Mujawar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Hingangaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. through Chairman vs Salim Yasin Mujawar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition was dismissed without any orders as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner-Employer is a 'scheduled employment' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, notwithstanding that the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 are not applicable to it.

Court's answer

Entry No. 17 to the schedule of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 merely borrows the definitions of 'shop' and 'commercial establishment' from the Shops Act; borrowing the definitions is completely different from the applicability of the provisions of the Shops Act to a particular establishment.

Ratio / Principle

An establishment that may not be governed by the provisions of the Shops Act can still qualify to be a 'commercial establishment' and hence a 'scheduled employment' within the meaning of the Minimum Wages Act.

Key takeaways

It is otherwise inconceivable that an employer carrying on a scheduled employment outside the jurisdiction of the area where the Shops Act applies could be permitted to exploit workers by not paying the minimum wages provided under the Minimum Wages Act.ratio¶21
The Labour Court rightly interpreted the provisions of both the Minimum Wages Act and the Shops Act in passing the impugned order; no serious error is traceable in it.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J., decision dated 12 February 2025) dismissed Writ Petition No. 556 of 2024 filed by Hingangaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. through its Chairman, challenging the order dated 18 November 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sangali, which had partly allowed the application of the Respondent, Salim Yasin Mujawar, under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directed the Petitioner-Employer to pay Rs.1,30,040/- to the Respondent with interest at 6% per annum. The Petitioner argued that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applies only to 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(g) and that, since Entry No. 17 treats 'shop'/'commercial establishment' as scheduled employment with meanings borrowed from the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (Shops Act), non-applicability of the Shops Act excluded it. The Court held that Entry No. 17 merely borrows the definitions of 'shop' and 'commercial establishment' from the Shops Act, and borrowing definitions is entirely different from the applicability of the Shops Act's provisions: an establishment not governed by the Shops Act can still qualify as a 'commercial establishment' and hence a 'scheduled employment' under the Minimum Wages Act, else employers operating outside the Shops Act's territorial reach could deny workers statutory minimum wages. Concluding that the Labour Court had rightly interpreted both statutes with no serious error traceable, the Court dismissed the writ petition without any orders as to costs.

Sonali Mane

34-WP-556-2024.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 556 OF 2024

Hingangaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. Through Chairman

… Petitioner

Versus

Salim Yasin Mujawar … Respondent

Mr. Sandeep S. Mutalik (Through V.C.) a/w Mr. Sandeep Mahadik for the Petitioner.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2025.

P.C. :

The Petition challenges Order dated 18 November 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sangali partly allowing the application preferred by the Respondent under provisions of Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the Petitioner-Employer to pay amount of Rs.1,30,040/to the Respondent alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

I have heard Mr. Mutalik, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him.

MANE SONALI DILIP

Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2025.02.14 14:16:57 +0530

Mr. Mutalik has principally submitted that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are not applicable to the Petitioner-Employer. He would submit that the Act applies only to ‘scheduled employment’ as defined under the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act. He would further submit that under

___Page No.1 of 2 ___ 12 February 2025

Sonali Mane

34-WP-556-2024.docx

Entry No. 17 to the schedule, though employment in ‘shop’ and ‘commercial establishment’ is treated as a ‘scheduled employment’, the expressions ‘shop’ and ‘commercial establishment’ are required to be given same meaning as assigned to them in the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 ( Shops Act ). He would submit that the provisions of Shops Act are not made applicable to the Petitioner-Employer and that therefore Petitioner is not a ‘scheduled employment’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act.

In my view, Entry No. 17 to the schedule of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 merely borrows the definition of the terms ‘shop’ and ‘commercial establishment’ from the Shops Act. Borrowing definition of the said terms is completely different from applicability of provisions of the Shop Act to a particular establishment. A particular establishment may not be governed by the provisions of the Shops Act. However it can still qualify to be a ‘commercial establishment’ and hence a ‘scheduled employment’ within the meaning of Minimum Wages Act. It is otherwise inconceivable that an employer carrying on scheduled employment outside the jurisdiction of area where Shops Act applies can be permitted to exploit the workers by not paying the minimum wages as provided for under the Minimum Wages Act.

In my view, the Labour Court has rightly interpreted the provisions of both the Minimum Wages Act as well as Shops Act while passing impugned order. No serious error can be traced in the impugned order of the Labour Court. Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

___Page No.2 of 2 ___ 12 February 2025