SARA MATHEW Vs. ROSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether authority determining a claim under S.20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act has jurisdiction to decide the status of a claimant is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. By Ext. P1 the impugned order the Labour Court in disposing of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the management held that it has such power. The legality of the order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) S.20 of the Minimum Wages Act provides that all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages shall be decided by the authority prescribed. Sub-section (3) contemplates further 'enquiry' for the purpose of such determination. The right to claim minimum wages stems out of the status of the claimant as an employee. The notification issued under the Act specifies the rates of wages applicable to each category of employee. Whether a particular employee would fall within a specified category is a question that arises incidentally in determining the claim for the minimum wages. It is the existence of the right to claim such rates of wages that enables the claimant to make an application under the Section. An enquiry as to the existence of the right would therefore precede the computation. The cases where the existence of the right is not disputed presents no difficulty but where the dispute arises as to the right to claim at a specified rate on the ground that the claimant belongs to a category different from that for which the wages are claimed, the authority cannot proceed to determine the amount payable without deciding the question as to which category the claimant belongs. Such questions being incidental to the main enquiry that is contemplated under the provision are to be decided by that authority itself and the same would not amount to an industrial dispute for adjudication.

(3.) In considering the scope of the analogous provisions contained in S.33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court has pointed out in The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan etc. ( AIR 1964 SC 743 ) and : ( 1963 2 LLJ 89 ) that