VERKEY AND CO Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition presented by T.K.Verkey & Co., the 1st petitioner ('the Company' for short) and its Manager, the 2nd petitioner, challenging the validity of the order made by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore, the 1st respondent, on the application filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bangalore, the 2nd respondent under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act ('the Act' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration - Whether the 1st Petitioner - Company which has entered into, a contract with the Railway Administration of the Central Government for constructing buildings can be regarded as carrying on its business/industry by or under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore liable to pay its workmen wages at the rates fixed by the Central Govern-ment under the Act ?

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Company is an independent building contractor. It has entered into a contract for construction of buildings with the Union Railways Wheel and Axle Plant, which is part of the Railway Administration of the Union Government. The work spot is situate at Puttenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore District. The 2nd respondent Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Act before the 1st respondent the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) stating that the Company had not paid the minimum wages payable to its workmen in accordance with the notification issued by the Central Government under the Act. The 2nd respondent prayed for an order under Section 20(3) of the Act against the Company directing it to pay the difference of wages of Rs. 4,702/- for the period commencing from 27-2-1983 to 28-3-1983 as also compensation of Rs. 47,020/- to the concerned workmen. He also prayed that for the period commencing from 4-9-1982 to 20-2-1983 the Company should be directed to pay the difference of wages of Rs. 11,192-70 and compensation of Rs. 1,11,927/-. The Company raised objection before the authority to the effect that the notification issued by the Central Government under the Act had no application to the case of the Company as the Company was not carrying on the work by or under the authority of the Central Government or the Railway Administration and consequently there was no relationship of Principal and Agent between the Central Government and the Company. The objection was over-ruled. Another objection raised by the Company was to the effect that the work-spot, where the Company was carrying on the work, was situated beyond 8 kms. from the periphery of the City and, therefore, the rates of wages payable within the City of Bangalore and in the area within 8 kms. from the periphery from the Bangalore Corporation limits was not applicable. But nevertheless the 2nd respondent had proceeded on the basis that the wages payable by the Company was at the rate payable at the City of Bangalore on the assumption that Puttenahalli Village was within 8 kms. from the periphery of the Bangalore Corporation Area. This objection was also over-ruled. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.

(3.) The plea of the petitioners is as follows : Under the Act, the Company is governed by the rates of wages fixed by the State Government, as it is the appropriate Government as defined under the Act it is only when a person was carrying on industry by or under the authority of the Central Government or Railway Administration, the appropriate Government for purposes of fixation of wages under the Act would be the Central Government. Respondents 1 and 2 proceeded on the basis that because the Company is having a contract for construction of buildings with the Railway Department, the employment under the Company was an employment under the authority of the Railway Administration/Central Government. This view is clearly erroneous. Therefore the order is without jurisdiction.