Dismissed

Sports Authority of India And an v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2022WPC/4380/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Sports Authority of India challenging a Minimum Wages Act award. The Court held that as a Central Government organization, the petitioners are liable for minimum wages. Finding no evidence that workers were solely contractor employees, the petition was dismissed. Deposition of dues was ordered for disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order dated 10.01.2012 vacated; Regional Labour Commissioner directed to disburse deposited amount to workmen via Nationalized Bank.

Sports Authority of India And an Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]

¶2

W.P.(L ) No. 4380 of 2011

¶3

Sports Authority of India & Anr.

¶4

.... .. ... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India & Ors.

¶7

.. ... ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶9

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate For the respondent(s) : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC

¶10

12/ 03.03.2022 .

¶11

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Anand has submitted that petitioners- Sports Authority of India and its Director have preferred the instant writ petition initially for direction upon Regional Labour Commissioner to decide the preliminary objection, regarding jurisdiction at the first instance before delving into the merits of the case in claim Application No. M.W. Claim (1)/2011-RLC (R) dated 13.01.2011, under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶13

But during pendency of the present writ petition, the final award has been passed in claim application no.(1)/2011- RLC (R) dated 20.10.2011, passed by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi cum the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶14

The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi has directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 (herein appellants) i.e. Sports Authority of India and Director, Sports Authority of India, NSEC, Salt Lake City, Kolkata– 700098 to deposit Rs.5,23,971/- which includes difference amount of wages of Rs.1,12,751/-, rest days wages of Rs.72,967/- and compensation of Rs.3,38,253/- with this Authority within 30 days from the date of issue of this Award through Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘Accounts Officer, Pay & Accounts Office, D.G.M.S., payable at Dhanbad.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Anand has submitted that by way of Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.3417 of 2011, the amendment has been incorporated in the main writ petition assailing the Award and after a great pursuasion, the counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Anand is harping upon the Award and primarily has argued on jurisdiction of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi to entertain such application. He has further submitted that the Award passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner- cum-

¶17

-2-

¶18

authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is perverse and requires interference by this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Anand has further submitted that these nine workers were never employed by petitioner - Sports Authority of India rather they were employed by respondent no.5 i.e. original O.P. no.3 before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, M/s Bhootpurv Sainik Kalyan Sangh represented by Sri Anirudh Singh, Secretary, 302, Girdhar Plaza, Opp. Goshala, Harmu Road, Ranchi- 834001. They were never employees of the Sports Authority of India directly rather they have rendered services through their contractors to the Sports Authority of India as a security guard, as such, they are not entitled for any relief before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. etc. vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others etc., reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1 and also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.66 of 2002 ( Green Woods Ranchi vs. Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad & Ors. ) .

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Anand has further submitted that Court has to consider all these matters though the documents have not been exhibited by the Sports Authority of India under the Minimum Wages Act before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, but it has come in the evidence, which this Court may consider.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that respondents have also not exhibited any document to establish that they were working under the Sports Authority of India and they were not working under the contractor i.e. M/s Bhootpurv Sainik Kalyan Sangh, as such, impugned order, which is bad in law, may be set aside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has submitted that impugned award passed by the court below is a reasoned order and it does not require any interference by this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has further submitted that as per Schedule- VII, List-III, concurrent list at item no.24 of the Constitution of India, which mentions about welfare of labour including conditions of work, provident funds, employers liability, workmen's compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits, it is jurisdiction of the

¶25

-3-

¶26

Union of India as well as the State Government in view of Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

¶27

2.(b) “Appropriate Government” means,-

¶28

(i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the [Central Government or a Railway Administration], or in relation to a mine, oilfield or major port, or any corporation established by [a Central Act], the Central Government, and

¶29

(ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the [State Government];”

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has further submitted that the Central Government has issued a notification, as such, the first question, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the maintainability is fit to be negated, as Sports Authority of India is constituted by the Central Government and as per the notification of the Central Government, the rates are given so as to pay to the nine workers, which they have paid, but they have not paid for the rest day.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has further submitted that petitioners- Sports Authority of India and its Director have not brought any document on record to establish that these persons (respondents) were not engaged by the Sports Authority of India and these persons (respondents) were employed by the contractor(s) under M/s Bhootpurv Sainik Kalyan Sangh, as such, the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. vs. National Union Water Frame Workers and others, (supra ), which relates with under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 where the issue was with regard to the CLR Act hereinafter referred as, but in the present case, the difference of wages has been taken note of under the Minimum Wages Act and the appropriate Government has already been defined under Section 2(b)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which includes the Central Government.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent- Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has distinguished the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.66 of 2002 (Green Woods Ranchi vs. Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) JCR 238) from the present case on facts, on the ground that in para 16 it has been categorically mentioned that there was a case of admitted contractor which is not in the present case, as such, both the judgments relied by the petitioners are not of any help to the writ petitioners.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent- Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has further submitted that this Court has limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of award and this Court may not look into such matter like a

¶34

-4-

¶35

court of appeal, as such, writ petition may be dismissed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has further submitted that while deciding the case, the learned Regional Labour Commissioner and the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has recorded at para 20 of order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure-7), which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

¶37

“ 20 .I found that applicants were engaged by the respondent nos.1 & 2 through the Respondent no.3 in the establishment under the Respondent no.1 for a considerable period of time. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 come within the definition of the employer under Section 2(e) of the MW Act. The Respondent No.3 submitted bills with a view to disburse the wages according to notification. This was ignored by the Respondent nos.1 & 2 deliberately. Further, the Principal employer is also liable under Section 21(4) of the CL (R&A) Act, 1970 in respect of failure of the contractor to pay the due wages. It is observed that though the Respondent no.2 admitted that the payment of wages is the liability of the Principal Employer as evident from his letter dated 08.10.10 but he carefully avoided the said consent and instead preferred to terminate the contract abruptly resulting in termination of the services of the applicants. In this circumstance, I found that the Respondent Nos.1& 2 are liable to bear the difference wages etc. arising out of the notification issued by the Central Government under the MW Act.”

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Nitu Sinha [CGC] has contradicted this para i.e. para 20 by saying that no document has been brought on record before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi and authority under the Minimum Wages Act and in view of non-production of any document, the award has rightly been passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, which does not requires any interference.

¶39

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials brought on record, this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has a limited jurisdiction, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. vs. Khem Chand & Anr., reported in 2006 (6) SCC 325 , whereby it has been held that High Court while exercising power under writ jurisdiction cannot deal with sufficiency of punishment inflicted on the management or a workman or a particular misconduct nor can it interfere with the factual finding of the labour court.

¶40

From perusal of the materials, it appears that basic argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the maintainability of the petition. This Court has perused the impugned award as well as the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 2b(i) squarely covers the case of the workmen as the organization is Central Government organization, such matter are listed in the Schedule- VII, ListIII, concurrent list at item no.24 of the Constitution of India, as such, Union of India as well as State Government has right to make notification, which has been made by the Union of India in present case, since the organization belongs to the

¶41

-5-

¶42

Union of India, it was incumbent upon the respondent- Sports Authority of India (writ petitioners herein) to pay the difference of minimum wages to the workmen and payment of dues of the rest day.

¶43

So far the perversity is concerned nothing has been brought on record by the Sports Authority of India to establish that these persons were employed by a contractor i.e. respondent no.5- M/s Bhootpurv Sainik Kalyuan Sangh. The averments made by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act as well as the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi in para 20 is without any substance or without any evidence bought on record. Considering such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

¶44

The money which has been deposited pursuant to the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in this writ petition shall be released in favour of the workmen in their Accounts in the Nationalized Bank.

¶45

Accordingly, order dated 10.01.2012 passed by Co-ordinate bench of this Court is hereby vacated and modified.

¶46

The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) is directed to disburse the same to the actual labourer or their legal heirs in case, if they have died on proper verification in their Accounts in Nationalized Bank.

¶47

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶48

R.S.

Sports Authority of India And an v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sports Authority of India And an v. Union of India 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

Mrkr Pallavi Upakar Jv through Its Authorized Signatory M Vasudeva Reddy Vs East Central Railways Represented through General Manager

Mrkr Pallavi Upakar Jv through Its Authorized Signatory M Vasudeva Reddy Vs East Central Railways Represented through General Manager

Ms Vijaya Homes And Anr. Vs Gopal Chandra Tiwary And Anr.

Bablu Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Principal Secretary Department of Food

Sudeshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand