RADIANT ENTERPRISES vs LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (C)I & 1 Other(S) Q

A short question involved in this petition is as regards the 'appropriate Government' to which the petitioner herein would be responsible under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Before delving upon the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to notice the definition of the 'appropriate Government' contained in Section 2(b) of the

Act which is reproduced for convenience:

"2(b) "appropriate Government" means ­­­

(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

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

Apparently, if the employment is in a mine, oil­field or major port or in corporation established by the Central Government or if it is a scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the central government or railway administration, Central Government would be the 'appropriate Government' and for other scheduled employments, the State Government would be the 'appropriate Government'. Thus, in case of scheduled employment, the Government carrying on the employment or the Government under whose authority, the employment is being carried out would be a determinative factor for 'appropriate government'. It is also clear that factual foundation relevant for determining the 'appropriate Government' must be first laid. It appears that in the instant case, the petitioner was a labour contractor who had supplied the labourers to M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd., a Telecom Service provider and the respondent on the assumption that it was an appropriate government under the Minimum Wages Act, proceeded against the petitioner on behalf of Central Government on the assumption that said M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd., is working under the authority of the Central Government and thus fixed the liability under the Act, on the petitioner, by impugned order.

In absence of factual foundation that employment in the said M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd., was carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, the respondent had no authority to fix the liability under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained and the matter is required to be remanded to the respondents for its decision afresh after determining the facts as above by a cogent evidence. Ordered accordingly.

Pursuant to the order dated 18/01/2018, if any deposit is made by the petitioner, it shall be refunded to the petitioner, after encashment of the Fixed Deposits, by demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner.