VIMAL PRINTERS Vs. OMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents (1) and (2) are compositors of the printing press belonging to the petitioner. In October, 1975 they filed a joint petition before the Labour Court, under S 33 - C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming difference between wages actually paid and wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act. The 1st respondent's claim was for the period from 1-8-1967 to 30-9-1975 and the 2nd respondent's for the period from 1-2-1969 to 30-9-1975. Overruling the objections of the petitioner employer, the Labour Court held that the respondents were entitled to get Rs. 3,405/- and Rs. 1,596/- respectively. This writ petition is directed against Ext. P6 order of the Labour Court.

(2.) It was contended before the Labour Court that the petitioner was bound to pay wages only at the rates specified in Ext. P5 agreement of 1974. That contention was rightly rejected by the Court in the light of S.25 of the Minimum Wages Act. which declares as void all contracts or agreements providing for payment of wages at rates lower than those fixed under the Act. The petitioner may be right in his contention that the belated claims for arrears, for more than 8 years in one case and 6 years in the other, were filed as a measure of retaliation against disciplinary action, and that but for such action, the employees were willing to receive the rates of remuneration fixed in Ext. P5. But that cannot affect the operation of S 25 of the Act; nor was the Labour Court competent to reject the claims on the basis of Ext. P5.

(3.) The more important point raised before the Labour Court was that claims enforceable under the Minimum Wages Act could not be agitated in proceedings under S 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court observed that even barred claims under the Minimum Wages Act could be advanced in a petition filed under S.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the petitioner is apparently justified in contending that the scope of the objection has not been fully examined by the Labour Court. The objection urged in Ext. P2 was in the following terms: