OM PRAKASH MATHUR Vs. PANJON LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since short question is involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up today and disposed of at this stage.

(2.) Petitioner filed petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being LCA No. 39/96 before the Labour Court in which he claimed minimum wages as fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act on the ground that he is not being paid the minimum wages as prescribed. He also claimed earned wages. The details of claim are as under: a. Less than the minimum rate of wages paid between 01.05.1989to31.05.1994. Rs. 17,920,00 b. Earned wages for June & July, 1994. Rs. 3,612.00 c. Earned wages for the month of August, 1994 to December 20th, 1994. Rs. 8,605.00 Rs. 30,137.00

(3.) Labour Court vide impugned order dated 15.5.1998 rejected the application of the petitioner as not maintainable. The order of the Labour Court is not sustainable. The entitlement to claim minimum wage arises because of the statutory provisions contained in the Minimum Wages Act and for this purpose no prior adjudication is required. It is a service condition prescribed by the statute which recognises the entitlement of the petitioner to get minimum wages. The judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, reported in 1995 LLR 161, quoted by the Labour Court is not applicable in so far as claim for minimum wage is concerned. I have discussed this matter in detail in my judgment being Civil Writ Petition No. 3016 of 1999 entitled, Jeet Lal Shanna v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court IV and another, pronounced on 15.3.2000. However, in so far as the claim for wages for the period June, 1994 to December, 1994 is concerned, there is some disput about the same. Petitioner has himself annexed letter dated 22nd July, 1994 addressed by respondent No. 1 to M/s. Jagdishwar Traders wherein M/s. Jagdishwar Traders was asked to pay salary to the petitioner and thereafter vide letter dated 8th December, 1994, respondent No. 1 transferred his services from Delhi to Indore. Petitioner treated the aforesaid action of respondent No. 1 as termination of his service and raised industrial dispute about the same. Since there is a dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner to draw the salary for this period including the aspect as to whether he worked during this period or not, this aspect needs adjtidication for which claim of the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be maintainable. Moreover, petitioner has himself raised industrial dispute and sought reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and this aspect can be properly gone into in the aforesaid reference. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that apart from the minimum wage, petitioner has also claimed ten times penalty which, according to learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner is not entitled under Section 33, C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The submission of the learned Counsel has force as there is not such power with the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.