BAHADURSINGH BIRSING Vs. C P FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eight applicants are watchmen employed by opponent No. 2, Messrs. Patel & Motichand Co., Ltd., a firm carrying on business as building contractors in the City of Bombay. Under Section 3, Minimum Wages Act, 11 of 1948, the appropriate Government may fix,

(2.) in case any employee is not paid a minimum rate, there is provision made by the Minimum Wages Act for the employee to approach an authority appointed by the State Government under Section 20, Minimum Wages Act. Such an authority has to determine, upon such an application, as to whether any employee has been paid the minimum rate of wages or not. The eight applicants made eight applications to the authority constituted under Section 20, Minimum Wages Act contending that they had not been paid the minimum rate of wages by opponent No. 2. It was admitted that for every day the eight workers had worked, they had been paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per day; but the employees contended that they had worked overtime, and it was less than what they should have been paid for the normal working day and overtime during which the employees claimed that they had worked. The authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act has, upon a finding that the emdployces admitted that they had been paid at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per day, came to the conclusion that it had no authority to go into the question as to whether the employees had worked overtime or not, which was not admitted by opponent No. 2. The employees have thereupon made these applications to this Court under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) Now, the only question in these eight applications is whether the authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act was justified in refusing to go into the question whether the employees had worked overtime, when opponent No. 2 denied that they had done so.