State challenged a Labour Commissioner's award of Rs.2,23,153.80 as wage difference to 27 contract labourers of the Government Press, arguing the press was not an industry and payment followed a government circular. The court held the MW Act's employer definition does not hinge on industry status and confirmed the award with 6% interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 15721 OF 2007 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHANTHINAGARA, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KOLAR.
CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
BANGARPETE.
C/O CHANDRAPPA, VASAVI ROAD, NEAR MARAMMA GUDI, SHIDLAGHATTA, KOLAR DISTRICT.
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, NO. 271, NEAR SHARADA TALKIES, (OLD MILK DIARY), KATARIPALYA, KOLAR.
S/O RAMAKRISHNA, NO. 1876, SHARADA TALKIES ROAD, KOLAR.
S/O GOLAN H.R SRI RAMA TEMPLE, 4TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R15; SRI. SUNDAR RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R16 TO R29)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR DATED 02.05.2007 VIDE ANNEX-D, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETTION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this writ petition assailing
the impugned order dated 02.05.2007 passed by the Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (‘the MW Act’ for short), whereby, the Labour Commissioner awarded the difference of salary to the extent of sum of Rs.2,23,153.80/- to 27 labourers.
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
contract basis in the office of the Assistant Director, Government Press from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 and the Government Press has paid rate fixed on daily wages based on the Government order. The labourers filed claim petition before the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the MW Act in the year 2005 contending that the petitioners are not paid the minimum wages as provided under the Act.
petitioner-State, Sri V. Laxminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for Smt Anusha .L, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 15 and Sri Sundar Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.16 to 29 and perused the material on record.
contentions raised in the petition, learned HCGP would mainly urge the following grounds:
have been entertained by the respondentauthority.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order passed by the Labour Commissioner is justify, legal, valid and does not warrant any interference and liable to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that material on record would indicate that the respondents are in work from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 on piece-rate work at 10:00 a.m to 5:30 p.m for six months, for which the minimum wage is applicable under the Act has to be paid and would contend that there is no merit in the petition filed by the State and sought to dismiss the petition.
of this Court in the case of Jyothi Home Industries and
Others vs State of Karnataka1 (Jyothi Home
Industries) .
parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is an industry or not is necessary for consideration of an application filed by the claimants seeking wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948?”
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
" 2.Definitions : In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
(j) "industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or
1 WP Nos.2309-2313/1982 & connected matters D.D. 16.07.1982
industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;"
" 2. Interpretation : In this Act, unless there
is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
(e) "employer" means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26,-"
" 2.Definitions : In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
fixed as per the MW Act has to be paid as under Section 3 of the Act.
"33. The provisions of S. 3 (2) of the Act, if they are scrutinized closely, bring out the powers of the Government to fix a minimum rate of wages for time-work and for piece-work and a minimum rate of remuneration to employees employed on piece-work for the purpose of securing to such employees a minimum rate of wages on a timework basis. This remuneration under S. 3(2)(c) of the Act is called as guaranteed time-rate. It is also open to the Government under S. 17 of In the Act to bring about parity in the wages of employees employed on piece-work, for which a minimum rate is not fixed, with those employed in work, for which a minimum time-rate has been fixed under the Act. Hence, it is clear that the appropriate Government, under S.3 of the Act, can fix minimum wages for hours actually worked by the employee and if he is not in a position to fulfil this part of the contract on account of the fact that the employer does not offer him the necessary raw
material to work on his job, he would be entitled to remuneration under S. 3(2)(c) of the Act. The Government, knowing the plight of the bidi workers, has prescribed a sum of Rs. 4 per day as guaranteed remuneration in the event of the employer being not in a position to fulfil his part of the contract in offering a full day's work to the employee and that remuneration is called the "guaranteed wages" in the impugned notification. In my view, it is wrong to treat the terms "wages", "minimum wages" and "remuneration" as connoting different concepts under the Act. The word "wages" is the genus, and "time-rate," "piece-rate," "overtime wages," "minimum rate of wages" and "remuneration" are species. As observed by the Supreme Court, while considering the meaning of the word "remuneration" in the Catering Wages Act, 1943, in Central Bank of India v. Their workmen [1959-II L. L. J. 205], words must be given their meaning with reference to the context in which they occur in a statute. What the Supreme Court observed was:
"... We think that the decision itself shows that the word 'remuneration' must be given its meaning with reference to the context in which the word occurs in the statute. In the context of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, it meant the net payment
after certain deductions from wages paid by the employer; and in the Workmen's Compensation Act, it meant the amount of a man's earnings in an employment. We have pointed out that in the Banking Act with which we are concerned, the word 'remuneration' has been used in the widest sense. In that sense, it undoubtedly includes bonus."
In the context in which the word "wages" is defined and used in the Act, it also includes remuneration which is not for work done but amount paid by way of compensation for the period of involuntary unemployment of the workmen on account of the fact that the employer is not in a position to give the employee raw material for doing his day's job. Had he been employed on a time-rate basis, he would have been entitled to the full day's wages at the rate of Rs. 7.40 per day. In this case, most of the employees are employed on a piece-rate basis and, therefore, to bring up the level of their wages with those of employees employed on time-work basis, the Government provided that they should be paid a minimum amount of Rs. 4 per day as remuneration or guaranteed wages for the period of their involuntary unemployment on a given day. Though the term used is "guaranteed wages" it
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
should be understood as guaranteed remuneration. It could also be understood in that way in the light of the provisions of S. 3(2) read with S 20 of the Act and why that guaranteed minimum remuneration is paid to these workmen is clear from the very object of the Act. If these employees are entitled to a minimum time-rate of Rs. 7.40 per day and if they are not provided with sufficient raw material to earn Rs. 7.40 per day on piece-rate basis, it is but fair that the Government should guarantee that these employees working on piece-rate basis should get a minimum amount of Rs. 4 per day either for rolling one bidi per day or for 700 or for rolling no bidies at all. Therefore, it is wrong to contend as maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notification interferes with the contractual right of the parties as observed by the Supreme Court in Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association case [A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 486] (vide supra). The concept of wages under the Act is not contractual but statutory and the statutory element is provided for under the provisions of S. 3 of the Act and the employer would be bound by any notification under S. 3 of the Act fixing either a minimum remuneration. rate of wages or remuneration."
(emphasis applied)
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
ORDER
AT/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the employer-employee relationship under the Minimum Wages Act depends on the establishment being an 'industry' under the ID Act?
Whether payment per a Government circular satisfies the statutory minimum wages fixed under Section 3 of the MW Act for piece-rate work?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jyothi Home Industries and Others vs State of KarnatakaRelied on¶16
Jyothi Home Industries and Others vs State of Karnataka, WP Nos.2309-2313/1982 D.D. 16.07.1982
6 provisions across 3 enactments
The State of Karnataka, by the Director, Government Press, Peenya, Bengaluru
The Assistant Director, Government Press, Kolar Division, Kolar
The Labour Inspector, Kolar Circle, Kolar
The Labour Officer and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Kolar
Somashekar
Suresh Babu
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
