Omar Vaishya Vidhyalaya Comittee vs P.A. and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 20. No one has appeared on behalf of other Respondents even though they have been served.

This writ petition is directed against orders dated 31.03.1986 passed by Prescribed Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948/Conciliation Officer U.P. Kanpur Region, Kanpur. Labour Inspector had filed three cases in respect of different classes of employees of the Petitioner school. All were decided on the same date by the same authority. Number of case in respect of teachers, who are Respondents No. 2 to 38 in this writ petition was M.W. Case No. 219 of 1985. The copy of the decision in the said case is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Similarly the number of the case in respect of riksha pullers and peons, 24 in number, who are Respondents No. 42 to 65 in this writ petition was M.W. Case No. 249 of 1985. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The third case was in respect of head clerk and two clerks who are Respondents No. 39 to 41 in this writ petition and number of the said case was M.W. Case No. 264 of 1985. In all the three cases the allegation was that for December 1984, January 1985 and February 1985 lesser salary than prescribed under Minimum Wages Act had been paid.

As far as the first case, Annexure-11 to the writ petition, is concerned, it was in respect of teachers and in this regard learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited an authority reported in Haryana Unrecognised Schools Association Vs. State of Haryana, In the said case, Supreme Court has held that Minimum Wages Act does not apply to teachers and State Government in exercise of powers under Minimum Wages Act is not entitled to fix the minimum wages for teachers of educational institutions. Accordingly, Annexure-11 to the writ petition is quashed.

However as far as Annexures-12 and 13 are concerned, which are in respect of clerks, peons and riksha pullers, there is absolutely no fault therein except that through the said orders apart from difference of minimum wages and wages actually paid an equal amount has also been directed to be paid as compensation. The findings regarding working hours etc. which have been sought to be assailed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are basically findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, in view of the serious dispute regarding applicability of the Act on the employees of the educational institution and in respect of working hours, the court is of the opinion that there was absolutely no occasion to award compensation.

Accordingly, Annexures 12 and 13 are affirmed in respect of basic amount (difference between minimum wages payable and the wages actually paid), however the said orders in respect of compensation are set aside.

Writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent no. 20. No one has appeared on behalf of other respondents.

Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 22.1.2007 dismissing the writ petition for non prosecution is set aside. Writ petition is restored.