Green Stone Company vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Another

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8257 of 1987, 1251, 2406, and 2407 of 1988 tiled against the Regional Labour Commissioner and another by M/s Green Stone Company. M/s Ram Sham and Company; M/s D.K. Minerals and M/s Bhartiya Minerals respectively are being disposed of by common judgment as common questions of fact and law are involved in these cases. For the purposes of judgment, facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 8257 of 1987.

The petitioner is holder of contract for extraction of road metal and masonary stone, a Minor Mineral, from the State of Haryana, under the provisions of Punjab Minor Minerals Concessions Rules. 1 964, in respect of quarry of village Mewla, Mahrajpur. District Faridabad at the rate of Rs. 33 lacs per annum on February 12, 1985, the Central Government had issued notification fixing minimum wage for the workmen employed in stone mine. On September 27, 1985, the Central Government issued another notification, copy Annexure P2, fixing minimum wage for stone breaking or stone crushing in respect of Faridabad. The petitioner had challenged the validity of notification dated September 27, 1985 issued by the Government of India. Ministry of Labour, under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). By this notification, the Central Government fixed minimum rate of wages of the employees doing the work of stone breaking or stone crushing at the rate of Rs 71/- for a truck load of 150 cubic feet. The notification was limited to the size of broken stone between 5 inches to 8 inches. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 1, gave award dated August 19, 1986, copy of which is Annexure P7 to the writ petition without there being any legal evidence in support of the claim filed by Respondent No.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order passed by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandigarh dated August 19, 1986, copy Annexure P7. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). Faridabad at Delhi tiled 30 claim applications before the Minimum Wages Authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. 1945, vide Annexure P7. it was held that under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948. all the employees were legally entitled to receive the payment of difference of wages as claimed by the applicant in claim application. The petitioner has averred in para No.7 of the writ petition that though constitutional validity of notification, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, has been challenged in the Delhi High Court yet the Respondent No. 1 was taking steps to proceed with the claim petition of Respondent No.2 for final disposal.

At the very outset. Mr. Rathee learned counsel for Union of India has brought to the notice of this Court that the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petitions No. 3018, 2803, 3137, 3138. 3140 of 1985 and 21 and 58 of 1986 decided on October 29, 1991, had quashed the impugned notification issued by the Government of India dated September 27, 1985, copy Annexure P-2. to the writ petition and as such the writ petitions have become infructuous.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly concedes that the said notification issued by the Government of India has been quashed. However, he contends that the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act are not empowered to fix minimum wages for the reason that no request/ application was made by any worker of the petitioner Company at any stage for fixing minimum wages. The counsel further contends that being aggrieved, the workers employees can file applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and they cannot invoke the remedy available to them under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Payment of Wages Act. The counsel further contends that the Minimum Wages Act is primarily concerned with fixing rates and the spirit of the Act is not to enforce payment of wages. The counsel further contends that opportunity to defend its case was not properly afforded. The counsel has also argued that the jurisdiction of Labour Court to entertain petition u/s 33C is not barred. In order to fortify the above submissions, reliance has been placed on Anand Oil Industries v. Labour Court, Hyderabad and Ors.", AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 182 and " Town Municipal, Council, Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli and Others etc., .

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in H.B. Verma v. Union of India and Ors. as also case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of judgment of the Delhi High Court in H.B. Verma''s case (supra) the controversy involved in these cases has been narrowed down. The Delhi High Court considered the background of the case which led to the issuance of impugned notification and quashed the same. While quashing the impugned notification, the Delhi High Court gave liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh notification for whole of the period during which the impugned notification was in operation, in accordance with law and in the meanwhile, the Delhi High Court directed that the petitioners shall make payment at the rate of Rs. 66/-per 150 cubic feet for whole of the period without making any deduction whatsoever and as if Rs. 66/- per cubic fee were prescribed in the impugned notification. However, in the said judgment the Delhi High Court had directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to deduct whatever wages have been paid so far on account of the interim order; granted by the Court and the stay thereon operating for a short period granted by the Supreme Court. The balance amount of wages were ordered to be paid within two months from October 29, 1991 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of wages become due till payment. It was further ordered that there shall be no default and the petitioners were directed to file a complete list of wages so paid containing full particulars with the respondents who were directed to enforce the payments as ordered under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

From the above observations of the Delhi High Court, it is obvious that the present controversy, so far as the validity of notification dated September 27, 1985, is concerned is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court. Since the notification has been quashed, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grouse in the matter.

The impugned order, copy Annexure P-7 to the writ petition, was passed after issuance of notice to the present petitioners and they were afforded proper hearing. The Minimum Wages Authorities have given sufficient reasons for fixing the wages. The petitioner-Companies in response to the notices issued to them filed written statement in which they stated as under:

"We are in receipt of your Registered Notices mentioned above and at the out set we submit that the matter is subjudice before the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi. Many writ petitions have been filed before the High Court of Delhi challenging the legality and validity of the notification dated September 27, 1985, fixing the minimum piece rate wages at the rate of Rs. 71 /- per truck of 150 cft. The Hon''ble Court has been pleased to issue show notice in the aforesaid writ petition wherein we have prayed amongst others as under:

Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned notification as being arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the Authority under the Act.

Issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondent No. 1, from enforcing the Notification pending disposal of Writ Petition."

In reply to the said petition, the petitioners have also stated that they were not manufacturing any stone of the above size namely 5" to 8". In fact, most of the stones exploited by them were of the size of 10" to 18". All the pleas raised by the petitioners were duly considered and after taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the case, the impugned order was passed. In the impugned order, the Prescribed Authority had simply fixed the minimum wages. There is no infirmity in the same and the same can legally be fixed.

The law cited by the petitioners also cannot help them as the facts involved in those are distinguishable.

In People''s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:

"Time has now come when the Courts must become the Courts for the poor and struggling masses of this country. They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They must be sensitised to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for generations. It is through public interest litigation that the problems of the poor are now coming to the forefront and the entire theatre of the law is changing. It holds out great possibilities for the future."

It was observed as under :

"The violations of labour laws should not be 1 viewed with great indifference and unconcern as if they are trifling offences undeserving of judicial severity. Labour laws are enacted for improving the conditions of workers and the employers cannot be allowed to buy off immunity against violations of labour laws by paying a paltry fine which they would not mind paying, because by violating the labour laws they would be making profit which would far exceed the amount of fine. If violations of labour laws are going to be punished only by meagre fines, it would be impossible to ensure observance of the labour laws and the labour laws would be reduced to nullity. They would remain merely paper tigers without any teeth or claws. Violations of labour laws must be viewed with strictness and whenever any violations of labour laws are established the errant employers should be punished by imposing adequate punishment."

The Supreme Court further observed, as under:

"Whenever any fundamental right which is enforceable against private individuals such as, for example a fundamental right enacted in Article 17 or 23 or 24 is being violated, it is the constitutional obligation of the state to take the necessary steps for the purpose of interdicting such violation and ensuring observance of the fundamental right by the private individual who is transgressing the same, of course, the person whose fundamental right is violated can always approach the Court for the purpose of enforcement of his fundamental right, but that cannot absolve the State from its constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of such person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of humanity and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him."

Further, the Preamble of the Act shows that the Act has to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. u/s 3 of the Act, the appropriate Government shall fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in the scheduled employment as per the procedure prescribed. Categories of scheduled employments are given in the schedule and employment in stone breaking or stone crushing is one of such scheduled employments. Under Subsection (3) of this Section, minimum rates of wages can be fixed for different localities for different scheduled employments and for different classes of work in the same scheduled employment. Section 4 prescribes as to what would be minimum rate of wages. Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. Therefore, the minimum wages Authority had acted within four corners of law and committed no illegality in fixing minimum wages of the workers.

It is now well settled that the Courts must become Courts for the poor and struggling masses of the country. They must be sensitised to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for generations. The right to minimum wages is a statutory right which vests in the employee and no further adjudication of the right to the payment of minimum wages is called for. It constitutes an existing statutory right. Statutory minimum wage is not to be regarded as static or fixed but a dynamic one, varying from time to time with the growth and development of living standard and notion of advancing progressive social philosophy. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions also castigated the employers for not ensuring minimum rates of wages to the employees and also criticised the authorities in not affording full protection to the employees towards payment of wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. I do not find any good and cogent reason to deprive the poor down trodden and ignorant employees of the minimum wages as given in the impugned order, copy Annexure P-7 to the Writ Petition.

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour on September 17, 1991 had fixed minimum wages for employees in scheduled employment of stone breaking and stone crushing. The said notification apply to employees employed in stone mines in whole of the country.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh had committed no illegality in fixing minimum wages of workers.

For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the notification dated September 27, 1985, copy Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, which has been quashed by the Delhi High Court cannot be enforced. However, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh copy Annexure P-7 to the writ petition and the same is maintained. However the employer shall pay wages to the employees in terms of Delhi High Court judgment as mentioned above. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.