LUBI ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. A T PAINTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.M. Patel for petitioners, Mr. Sunit Shah, learned Govt. Pleader for the State Authority. Learned Advocates Mr. Mukul Sinha as well as Mr. T.R. Mishra for respective Union.

(2.) By filing Special Civil Application No. 150 of 2006, 151 of 2006 and 152 of 2006, petitioners namely Lubi Electricals Ltd., Ahmedabad, Lubi Submersible Pump Ltd. And AP Motors (Hereinafter referred to as Sthe Management for short) have challenged the judgment given by the Officer appointed under the Minimum Wages Act and Judge, Labour Court No. 14 Ahmedabad dated 19.12.2005 in Minimum Wages Application No. 51/98, 52/98 and 53 of 1998 which were filed by the applicant Government Labour Officer under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Under the impugned judgment, the labour court and the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has partly allowed said applications and directed the establishment to pay minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act to all workmen working in the establishment within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of said order.

(3.) As per the case of the petitioners in these petitions, the wages and other conditions of service of employees working in the factory of the petitioner are governed by negotiated settlement arrived at from time to time. According to the petitioner, apart from wages and allowances, there is a scheme for payment of production linked incentive wages which is under a settlement with the Ahmedabad General Mazdoor Union which represents majority of the workmen employed by petitioner. According to petitioner, in January, 1998, Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha entered the scene and with a view to getting membership of the workers employed by the petitioner indulged in unfair labour practice of instigating the workmen to resort to mass indiscipline, go slow,intimidation, etc. Therefore, various notices were displayed by petitioner bringing to the notice of the workmen that such mass scale indiscipline is not in the interest of the workers and the Company. On account of go slow in January, 1998 and two to three months thereafter, some of the workers could not earn production linked incentive wages. Mazdoor Sabha made complaint to the Government Labour Officer that the wages paid to the workers are less than minimum wages. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said complaint made by the Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha, the Government Labour Officer visited factory of the petitioner and he was explained the scheme of payment of wages by the petitioner but he has not examined the incentive register and according to the petitioner, on the basis of the truncated and lopsided inspection, he filed Minimum Wages Application No. 51 of 1998 before the Labour Court acting as Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. According to the petitioner, Mazdoor Sabha on the other hand, filed Special Civil Application No. 7814 of 1998 before this Court alleging that the petitioner is not paying minimum wages and prayed for consequential directions. Said petition came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 5.2.1999 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy which was challenged by the Gujarat Mazdor Sabha by filing LPA No. 256 of 1999 which too came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 27.7.2005 with a direction that the Minimum Wages Application filed under the Act be decided and disposed of within three months. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, in proceedings pending before the authority, one application was filed by Shri Dayaram Nathuram and others at Exh. 73 for being impleaded as party to the proceedings before the authority which was dismissed by the authority and against such dismissal of that application, Special Civil Application No. 20983 of 2005 was filed wherein this Court granted permission to those workmen to file their written arguments before the authority. Thereafter, the authority by order dated 19.12.2005, partly allowed application and directed the petitioner to pay difference of minimum wages in respect of those workmen who did not file purshis before the authority conceding that their wages were in excess of minimum wages. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition with the main grievance that the authority has erred in giving direction on an untenable premise that the production linked incentive wages cannot be included for computing minimum wages and that even if there is go-slow, minimum wages cannot be denied.