PUNJAB ASSOCIATION REGD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is voluntary organisation and at the relevant point of time, they had a tailoring unit functioning under its control. THE workmen who are respondents 2 to 13 herein filed a claim petition before the first respondent Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act). THE claim related to payment of wages in lieu of weekly off, festival off as well as minimum wages applicable to tailoring industry. THEy also claimed unpaid bonus.

(2.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the Petitioner/Management contended that the workmen were not in their employment and there was no Master Servant relationship between the Management and the workmen. They had also stated that they cannot claim any Minimum wages under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further they also stated that the work undertaken by the petitioner organisation was on behalf of Khadi Gramaudyog Bhavan pursuant to the contract with them. Therefore, the only work done by the workmen was stitching the garments, as per the specifications and the workmen were paid on a piece rate basis. BEFORE the Labour Court, workmen had examined themselves as W.W1 to W.W.10 and they also marked the wage register for several years. On behalf of the management, they have had filed documents to show that the workmen were paid on piece rate basis. They also submitted the orders and correspondence between them and the Khadi Gramaudyog Bhavan. The Labour Court disallowed the claim for bonus and directed the Management to make payment for festival and weekly off as well as the unpaid Minimum wages. The Labour Court also specified amounts to be paid in respect of each workmen. It is against this order, the writ petition has been filed. An order of interim stay was also granted which was subsequently made absolute by this Court on 27.12.2002.

(3.) WITH reference to the above, the Supreme Court in Labourers, Salal Hydro Projet v. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 1983 (2) SCC 181 held that Workmen were also eligible for minimum wages and therefore, if the Workmen despite piece rate work are not paid the minimum rate fixed are entitled to get the short fall between the piece rate earnings and the minimum wages fixed by the respective Government. Otherwise, the Supreme Court also held in People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and others (1982 (3) SCC 235), that non payment of minimum wages would amount to forced labour which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. The second contention that Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act cannot be initiated for a claim for minimum wages is also considered by various judgments including in Municipal Council, Akola v. Labour court (1976 (1) LLJ 334 and Municipal Council, Bombay v. D.B.Pradhan(Vol.59 FJR 172)