Dismissed

Anamalai Ambedhkar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Feb 2013WP/2691/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner trade union challenged a draft notification revising minimum wages for tea plantation workers, arguing for a higher wage revision and uniform incentive norms. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding it is not a fit case for judicial review at the draft stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to quash the draft notification and direct a fixing of higher wages was dismissed.

Anamalai Ambedhkar Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.02.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.No.2691 of 2013

¶6

& M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶7

Anamalai Ambedhkar Thotta Makkal Sangam Regd.847/CBE/1993

¶8

Rep.by its General Secretary
S.Kesava Marugan
35, New Market, Valparai
Coimbatore 642 127 .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary
Labour and Employment Department
Chennai -9
2. The Commissioner of Labour
D.M.S.Complex
Teynampet,
Chennai 6
.. Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records in G.O(2D) No.25 dated 10.10.2012 pursuant to the orders of the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refix the minimum wages by increasing the basic wages at the rate of 29% as on 10.10.2012 i.e.Rs.154.90 and fix uniform work loan and incentive pattern norms for Tea Plantation.

¶10

For Petitioner :: Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan

¶11

For Respondents :: Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram Apl.G.P.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents State.

¶15

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner trade union challenges a Draft Notification issued under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of the employment in Plantation by G.O(2D) No.25, Labour and Employment Department dated 12.7.2012

¶16

The Draft Notification is regarding revision of minimum rates of wages for employees in plantation, that is any plantation which is maintained for the purpose of growing Cinchona, Rubber, Tea, Coffee or cardamon, under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.

¶17

The said Notification has been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in Part II-Section 2 on 10.10.2012. Notification is purportedly issued under Section 3(1)(b) and 5(2) r/w Clause © of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act provides the Government to review the minimum wages at such intervals as it may think fit and the intervals are not exceeding 5 years. Section 5(1)(a) provides for appointment of committees and subcommittees for conducting enquiries and advise the Government in respect of fixation or revision of minimum wages. Section 5(1)(b) enables the State Government to publish a draft Notification in the official Gazette, intimating the proposals for information of persons likely to be affected thereby and also specify the date, not less than two months from the date of the Notification, on which proposals will be taken into consideration. Proviso to Section 5(2) also provides that in case the State Government admits to revise the minimum wages under Section 5(1)(b), it also consult the the Advisory Board.

¶18

Even though the Notification is published, it comes into effect after consulting the advisory board. As per the draft notification, then the workers who are in Tea Plantation other than those in Kanniyakumari District are likely to get Rs.90/- in case of Adults and Rs.61/- in case of Adolescents, besides the variable D.A. Linked to average consumer price index for the year 2000 for Chennai city. Under the previous Notification issued under the same Act vide G.O.2D No.34, Labour and Employment Department dated 15.6.2008, the workers were directed to be paid Rs.78/- in respect of adults and Rs.53/- in respect of adolescents besides Dearness Allowances linked to average consumer price index.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Pursuant to the Draft Notification, the petitioner trade union sent a representation dated 12.10.2012 objecting to the Draft Notification and they wanted the notification to contain the amount of Rs.123/- basic wage plus 100.92 towards Dearness Allowance as brought under the incentive scheme for the Tea Estate under the TANTEA. The petitioner trade union also resorted to information under the Right to Information Act, as to the methodology under which the draft Notification arrived at the figure of Rs.90/- per day. They were informed by the Government that the basic wage was taken on the basis of the earlier notification, namely Rs.78/- and they granted 15% revision on the same, which works out to Rs.11.70 and if it is added together, it comes to Rs.89.70, and it is rounded off to Rs.90/-. Therefore, the petitioner union also sent a further representation on 22.1.2013 objecting to the fixation of minimum wages in the draft Notification. Thereafter, they have come forward to file the present Writ Petition challenging the Draft Notification and after setting aside the same seeks for a direction to fix minimum wages by increasing the basic wage at the rate of 29% as on 10.10.2012 i.e.Rs.154.90 and to fix uniform work load and incentive pattern norms for Tea Plantation.

¶21

It is not clear as to how the question of workload and incentive pattern norms can be brought under the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In any event, Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act mandates the State Government to take note of the representation received from the persons who are likely to be affected and to pass orders and if necessary also take advice from the advisory committee.

¶22

As noted already, the Act provides for two methods, either fixing the minimum wage or revising the minimum wage. In the present case, since the Government has chosen to follow Section 5(1)(b) of the Act wherein a representation was received and considered by the Government. This will indicate that there is a statutory obligation for the Government to consider such representation and it is only after the Government forms a final opinion and issues final Notification, the question of any judicial review will arise depending upon the challenge made to such Notification. This Court cannot interfere with the Draft Notification as ultimately the Government also can take note of several objections including the objection made by the petitioner union and inspite of the same, if the final notification is issued and still there are grievances, there is time enough for judicial review. If at this stage the draft Notification is stalled, it will only do injustice to the workmen at large. But, even if the draft Notification is finalised, they may get Rs.12/- as increase over and above what they are already getting.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

It is not a fit case where any interference is called for at
the stage of Draft Notification. Hence, the writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
ajr
To
1. The Secretary
The State of Tamil Nadu
Labour and Employment Department
Chennai -9
2. The Commissioner of Labour
D.M.S.Complex
Teynampet,
Chennai 6
+1 C.C. Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, Advocate SR NO 6472
+1 C.C. The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras-104. SR NO 6678
W.P.No.2691 of 2013
VSN (CO)
NG 15/02/2013

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Anamalai Ambedhkar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anamalai Ambedhkar v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Mukesh Kumar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

C.Rajkumar, Vs the General Manager

M.Velu Vs the Chairman

R.Kousalya, Vs the Director

Dr.C.S.Rex Sargunam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mr.v.Govinda Rajasekaran Vs the General Manager