AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. THE WEIGHMENS ASSOCIATION BY ITS SECRETARY, THE LABOUR OFFICER (THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948) AND THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING@RES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE weighmen who are working at APMC Yard at Tumkur and Tiptur have formed a Union. Through their Union they filed an application before the competent authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for short "the Act". They contend that the APMC Yard is their employer within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. In the schedule attached to the application they have given the particulars of wages paid to them, the difference between the minimum wages payable and the wages actually paid and they have sought for compensation of 50% of the difference in the minimum wages. On service of notice, the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee for short APMC entered appearance. They specifically contend that the Weighmen, the members of the applicant association are neither employees employed by the APMC nor the APMC is an employer within the meaning of the Act. These weighmen who carry on the business are not employees and the incidents of employment such as monthly salary, allowances, Provident Fund, Gratuity, bonus, periodical increments, ESI facility, etc., are not at all attracted. On the contrary, they are market functionary who carry on business under the provisions of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act of 1966, hereinafter referred to as the 'APMC Act'. They are on par with other business man such as Trader, Commission Agent, Exporter, Importer, Processor, Broker, etc., They obtain licence from the Market Committee for each area, and are performing their functions as weighmen and they are not paid salary or wages by the market committee as they are not employed by them. They also contend that the APMC is not a schedule employment as defined under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Act itself is not applicable to these applicants and sought for dismissal of the said application.

(2.) BOTH the parties adduced evidence, produced documents, relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in connection with the claim of weighmen of APMC Yard at Bangalore. On consideration of all these materials, the authority under the Act, held that the "weighmen" are workmen or employee of the APMC, within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. They are not paid the minimum wages under the Act and accordingly they are entitled to the difference of wages claimed by them, and allowed both the claim applications. Aggrieved by the same, the APMC Yard, Tumkur, APMC Yard, Tiptur, and Director of Agricultural Marketing in Karnataka, have preferred these writ petitions. As common questions of law arise for consideration, in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents Sri P.S. Rajagopal contended that it is a fact that the earlier notification was withdrawn. But the reasons given for withdrawal of the notification makes it very clear that as the APMC Yard is covered under the provisions of the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. In so far as the status of the weighmen is concerned, he submits that though under the Act and Rules they are expected to obtain licence before functioning in the Yard, the evidence on record, the nature of duties they perform, the way they are paid remuneration and the law on the point coupled with the decision of this Court in the case of Weighmen of Bangalore APMC Yard makes it very clear that notwithstanding the nomenclature of these weighmen they are employees under the Act and therefore, the provisions of the Act is attracted. Admittedly, they have not been paid the minimum wages prescribed in law and therefore, the authorities are fully justified in directing payment of difference in the wages as well as the compensation. As the authority has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has recorded finding of fact, it is not open for this Court to interfere with the said finding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation and when the benefit of that legislation has been extended to these unorganized working class, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.