ATHNI MUNICIPALITY Vs. SHETTEPPA LAXMAN PATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The President, Athni Municipality, has, in these three petitions, filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25 September, 1963 passed by the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the Athni area in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1961 directing the petitioner to pay wages for the work turned out by the respondents during the weekly holidays or rest days for the years 1955 to 1960. All the three petitions filed by the respondents before the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the Athni area were tried and disposed of by a common order dated 25 September, 1963 by agreement of parties. Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1961 was also tried along with these petitions. But the said application was dismissed by the authority and the same has not been challenged by the petitioners in that application. The present petitioner, who was the respondent in Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3, 4 and 5, has filed these petitions challenging the legality of the order passed by the authority and has prayed for the issue of appropriate writs quashing the same. Since all these petitions are directed against the common order and involved common questions of law, they are heard together and are disposed by this common order.

(2.) The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions briefly narrated are as under : The respondents are working in the several departments under the control of the petitioner municipality. They filed three separate applications claiming wages for the work turned out by them during the weekly holidays or rest days from 1 April, 1955 to 4 March, 1961. They had also claimed compensation from the petitioner but during the trial they filed memos abandoning that claim. The applications Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were filed before the authority appointed under the minimum Wages Act, 1948, for Athni area on 4 and 14 March, 1961 respectively. These applications were admittedly filed beyond six months from the date on with the minimum wages or other amount became payable to the applicants. Hence the respondents filed separate applications for condonation of the delay and admitting their petitions, setting out the cause for not making the applications within the period prescribed under the proviso to S. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The authority issued notices to the present petitioner to show cause why the applications filed by the workmen for condonation of the delay should not be allowed and their applications registered and posted for trial. The petitioner appeared before the authority and filed his objections and after hearing the petitioner and also the workmen the authority allowed the applications filed by the workmen for condonation of the delay in presenting the applications on the ground that they had shown sufficient grounds for not making the applications within the period prescribed under the Act. The authority passed an order on 24 September, 1961. Against the said order the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 125 of 1962 and three other writ petitions to this Court for quashing the order. This Court dismissed those three petitions at the stage of admission. Thereafter Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1961 were clubbed together at the request of the parties and common evidence was recorded in all the cases. The authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the Athni area, as already stated, accepted the claim of the workmen for wages for the work turned out by them during the weekly holidays or days of rest and fixed the wages at overtime rate by its order dated 25 September, 1963. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed these three writ petitions. It is not disputed that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1946, are made applicable to the Athni Municipality and that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Athni, is the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the Athni area. It is not also disputed that the respondents were all workmen employed by the petitioner and were working in the several departments under its control at the appropriate time. But two of them had ceased to be under the employment of the petitioner on the date on which the applications for payment of the wages for the work done by them during weekly holidays or days of rest are filed. The appointed authority has held that the petitioner had not given any weekly holidays or days of rest for the respondents during the relevant period and had extracted work from these employees during the relevant period. The authority rejected the contention of the petitioner that the application filed by the workmen claiming wages for the work turned out by them during weekly holidays or days of rest at the rate not less than overtime rate was not maintainable, It also rejected the contention of the petitioner that the salary paid to the respondents who are monthly rated staff, included in it the wages for the weekly holidays also and as such they are not entitled to claim any wages at a rate not less than the overtime rate. On the basis of these findings the authority calculated the amount due to the several applications (respondents), and it calculated the amounts due to the applicants (respondents) on the basis of the rates shown in the schedule to the notification No. 146/48-1, dated 30 October, 1937, issued by the appropriate authority and directed the petitioner to pay the said amounts to the respondents. The authority directed the parties to bear their own costs. Sri Srinivasa Ayyar, learned counsel who argued these petitions for the petitioner before us, raised the following contentions :

(3.) Before we proceed to consider the several contentions raised by Sri. K. S. Srinivasa Ayyar, we feel that it is necessary to set out the necessary provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 20 of the Act reads as follows :