Dismissed

M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd. Thro Legal Executive Sri Ankur Gupta v. the Union of India through Secretary Labour and Welfare Central Department And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2020WPC/5451/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, directing the petitioner to deposit difference wages. Upholding the Regional Labour Commissioner's order, the Court held that admitted inspection reports proved non-compliance with statutory minimum wage rates, and the petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding disbursem

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 4,52,592/- within a period of eight weeks.

M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (L) No. 5451 of 2011

¶3

M/s a2z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd.

¶4

… …Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The Union of India through Secretary, Labour and Welfare (Central) Department, Govt. of India, having its office at C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi.

¶7

The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Labour Department, Regional Office at Sector 11/E-191, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.

¶8

The Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) cum Inspector under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Regional Office at- Sector 11/E-191, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central), Shastri Bhawan, New Colony, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O., P.S. & District-Dhanbad.

¶10

The D.R.M. Ranchi Division- Southern Railway, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Hatiya, District-Ranchi.

¶11

The Hatiya Mazdur Union, C.I.T.U. Office B/44 Sector-II, H.I.C. P.O. & P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi. … …Respondents

¶12

… …Respondents

¶13

------------

¶14

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶15

(Through: Video Conferencing)

¶16

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate. For the Res. No. 1 to 4: Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate.

¶17

-----------

¶18

06/04.09.2020 In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing. today at 10:30 a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), in Claim Application No.17/2011-R.L.C. (R), filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, Under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whereby and whereunder the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi allowed the Claim Application and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.4,52,592/- as the aforesaid amount includes the difference amount of wages of Rs.3,77,160/- and compensation of Rs.3,77,160/- in lieu of the difference of wages of eight labours/workers engaged in the establishment of the petitioner, employed at Hatia Station as sweeping and cleaning of coaches under Senior Division, Southern Railway, as the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages required to be paid as per rate prescribed by the Government Notifications.

¶20

As per factual matrix, the petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at

¶21

¶22

0/116 First Floor Shopping Mall D.L.F. City phase-I Gurgaon, Harayana. It is the case of the petitioner that an inspection was done under Section 19 (1) of M.W. Act, 1948 where it was found that the workers were paid wages at less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under notification No. SO 1994 (E) dated 7.8.08 of Govt. of India for the period 1.2.10 to 31.7.10. The Labour Enforcement Officer vide Inspection Report No.26 (98)/2010-RNC dated 6.9.2010 sent a notice under the registered A/D with a request to rectify the irregularity and make payment of difference of wages less paid to the concerned workers within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the Inspection Report but the petitioner-company did not pay the difference between the wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the wages actually paid to the employees. Against non-payment of difference of wages less paid to the workers, the Labour Enforcement Officer filed a Claim Application being Claim Application No.(17)/2011-RLC (R) before the competent Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. After hearing the parties, the Regional Labour Commissioner allowed the Claim Application with a direction to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,52,592/- in lieu of the difference of wages. The same was denied and the order dated 20.06.2011 is being challenged by way of the instant writ application.

¶23

Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order strenuously urges that without considering the facts and the relevant documents, illegally and arbitrarily issued notice to the petitioner for non-payment of the difference of wages, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.

¶24

Learned Counsel further argues that the petitioner had already verified the difference of wages paid to the workers and made payment to 20 workers on the revised rate (wages) on the actual number of days worked by the labours and information to that effect had already been given to the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad. Ignoring the said facts, the claim case was preferred before the Regional Labour Commissioner for payment of difference of wages of 20 laboures.

¶25

Learned Counsel further argues that the complaint case was registered with mala fide intention as the claim between the parties had already been settled on 07.10.2010 and nothing has been brought on record regarding non-settlement of claim by any of the workers. The complaint raised by the Majdoor Union and subsequent withdrawal of the same clearly shows that there was no any claim case to be resolved by the respondents. The impugned order is purely mechanical, cryptic and without any basis. The petitioner to substantiate his argument brought on record the following documents which were marked as exhibits in the court-below:

¶26

i. Ex. R-1, Reply dated 7.10.2010 of respondent to inspection report.

¶27

ii. Ext. R-2 payment sheet of respondent.

¶28

iii. Ex. R-W/1-17 Statement of seventeen workers. iv. Ex. A/2 v. Ext. A/3.

¶29

¶30

Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.

¶31

Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the impugned order and argues that the petitioner-company is a licensed contractor under the CL (R&A) Act,1970 and as per its terms and conditions, the petitioner is required to pay wages not less than the minimum rate of wages to workers. It was incumbent upon the petitioner-company to pay wages not less than the minimum rates of wages to workers under Section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Learned Counsel impressed upon the Court that Respondent No.3 was fully empowered under Section 19 of MW Act, 1948 to inspect the establishment of the petitioner-company engaged at Hatia Railway Station in cleaning of coaches and on inspection it was found that the workers were being paid wages at the rates less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under Notification No. S.O. 1994 (E) dated 07.08.2008 read with order No.1/21(6)/2009-LS-II dated 30.09.2009 & order No. ¼ (6)/2010-LS-II dated 25.03.2010 of Government of India. The irregularities committed by the petitioner pointed out in the inspection report was never rectified.

¶32

Learned Counsel further argues that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and is trying to misguide the Court and the company deliberately depriving the poor workers of their legitimate dues. To buttress his argument, learned Counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Others, reported in [(1982)3 SCC 235: 1982 SCC (L&S) 275].

¶33

Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Tripathi argues that the Regional Labour Commissioner was fully justified in directing the petitioner to pay the amount, as mentioned is the said order, as the workers are duly entitled for the same.

¶34

Be that as it may, having heard the Counsel for the parties, this Court is in full agreement with the justification given by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Ranchi under the M.W. Act. Admittedly, inspection report clarified that the labourers/workers were paid less amount as prescribed under Section 20 (3) (i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner company did not pay the statutory minimum wages to the workers in view of notification dated 25.03.2010 of Government of India. Admittedly, the wages paid to the workers were less than the minimum rates of wages notified under the Act. As per Section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the employer is required to pay minimum wages to employee. From the exhibits RW-13 to 17, it appears that workers had not received difference amount and the petitioner-company did not produce the remaining three workers in spite of several opportunities. Disbursement of difference wage was never verified neither any wage slip were issued to workers. It is settled principle of law that as a licensed contractor under the CL (R & A) Act, 1970, the workers are not only entitled to payment of wages not less than the minimum wages but also the payment has to be disbursed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

¶35

¶36

I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and hence this writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

The petitioner-Management is directed to pay the entire amount within a period of eight weeks.

¶38

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶39

P.K.S.

M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd. Thro Legal Executive Sri Ankur Gupta v. the Union of India through Secretary Labour and Welfare Central Department And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd. Thro Legal Executive Sri Ankur Gupta v. the Union of India through Secretary Labour and Welfare Central Department And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employers In Relation To The Management Of Food Corporation Of India Thr Shri Vikash Krishna Mishra Vs Pradeep Kumar

Onkar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Represented through Its Asstt Manager Vs Dharmendra Kumar Pandey

Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central

Kunwar Singh Hessa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Dola Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary