MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SHAIKH RAHIM SHAIKH RUSTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Do the previsions of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding settlement of claims provide the exclusive remedy in supersession of that provided by Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding recovery of money due from an employer? This forms the core of the disputes raised in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 9 and 10 of 1982 as well as Writ Petition No. 2353 of 1981 and this judgment will govern and dispose of these proceedings.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 2353 of 1981, 16 applicants, 10 of them clerks and rest peons, had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Second Labour Court, Akola, claiming overtime wages for having worked on Sundays and holidays. At the trial before the Second Lab.our Court, Nagpur, the applicants did not lead any oral evidence because it was a common ground that the record relating to the number of rest days which worked out to 450 is with the Municipal Council. As the rates at which the amounts claimed by individual applicants were not known, the Labour Court appointed a Commissioner to work out the details on the basis of the records available with the employer municipality. Against this order, the present writ petition was filed and Padhye J. by his order, dated 9th September 1982 referred the case to a Division Bench in view of conflicting opinions on the subject.

(3.) Letter Patent Appeals Nos. 9 & 10 of 1982 raised more or less similar points and the decisions of the Labour Courts, Nagpur, were challenged in Writ Petitions Nos. 2067 of 1981 and 2145 of 1980 before Jamdar J. The learned Single Judge held that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable even though the same relief can be claimed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 1982 are directed against this judgment.