MANAGEMENT OF VENKATESWARA WIRES PORUR Vs. S VIJAYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a management. THEy have come forward to challenge a common order passed by the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, Chennai made vide Order dated 18.12.2008 in C.P.Nos.767 to 774 of 2002 filed by the contesting 1st respondents.

(2.) THE contesting 1st respondent moved the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computing the difference in payment of wages for the periods from 14.4.2000 to 31.10.2001 and from 1.12.2001 to 31.3.2002. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner, who is manufacturing Copper and Aluminium wires and supplying products to various Electricity Boards set up by the State Governments is covered by the Scheduled employment notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.2242, Labour and Employment Department dated 13.9.1981 under the caption "Employment in General Engineering and Fabriction Industries".

(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court on behalf of the workmen, one D.Damodaran was examined as W.W.1. On the side of the petitioner management, no witnesses were examined. On the side of the workmen, 6 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.W.1 to W.6. No documents were also filed by the petitioner. BEFORE the Labour Court in addition to the non-coverage of their unit under the scheduled employment, they also took the plea that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is a complete code by itself and therefore the workers cannot come before the Labour Court with a petition under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If at all they should avail the remedy under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. They also stated that since the Minimum Wages Act prescribes limitation, the workmen cannot file applications belatedly that too after a period of four years claiming the differential wages.