VIDARBHA METALLICA Vs. FIRST LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above petitions arise as a consequence of two contradictory findings on the same matter in the same establishment in respect of the workmen employed at the same place by the two different Presiding Officers of the Labour Court exercising the same jurisdiction. To clarify further a bunch of applications were filed by individual employees under Sub-section (2) of section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference in the wages paid and payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The bunch of applications were allotted to the two different Presiding Officers of the Labour Court at Nagpur. The proforma of the applications filed was identical. Only the names of employees, length of service rendered and amount claimed were different. The learned Presiding Officer of the IIIrd Labour Court, who decided the applications earlier was of the opinion that the minimum wages as fixed for the employment in the engineering industry were not applicable to the workmen of the petitioner establishment and by an order dated 21. 2. 1985 dismissed all the applications that were allotted to him. The presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court disagreeing with the order passed by the Presiding officer of the IIIrd Labour Court arrived at a contrary finding that the minimum wages as fixed for the employment in the engineering industry were applicable to the employees of the petitioner establishment and accordingly allowed the applications by directing the petitioner-employer to pay the sum due to each of the employees who had filed the applications. The petitioner which is partnership firm is hence challenging the contradictory finding given by the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court, Nagpur, in these petitions.

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner-firm deals in manufacturing of domestic utensils and household articles of brass in a small-scale industrial sector. The second respondent in each of the petitions is in the employment of the petitioner-firm working in different capacities. Each of them has filed application under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference in wages paid and payable under the Minimum wages Act, 1948 for the period during which they were in the employment prior to the date of the applications. The claim of the second respondent was based on the fact that the establishment of the petitioner is a scheduled employment in engineering industry, for which minimum rates of wages have been fixed by the Government of Maharashtra with effect from 1st December, 1974. The workmen hence claimed the basic wages and variable special allowance as fixed by the minimum wages notification.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner firm besides filing a separate written statement in each of the cases. It was contended therein that the petitioner admittedly manufactured utensils and/or household articles out of mixture of copper and zinc. As such the establishment of the petitioner is not an employment in the engineering industry covered by entry No. 36 of Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In this context the petitioner firm further contended that it was only in the year 1976 that the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act gave a notice of its intention to add to part I of the Schedule to that Act with effect from 15th February, 1977, the employment in any establishment manufacturing utensils of zinc, brass, copper, aluminium, stainless steel and/or any other material, in respect of which it was of the opinion that the minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the said Act. This was published by Notification no. MWA 3876/1189/lab-7 dated 8th November, 1976 by the Industries, Energy and Labour department, in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 23rd December, 1976. Accordingly by a further Notification No. MWA 3876/1180/lab-7 dated 30th March, 1977 the said scheduled employment came to be added as Entry No. 48 -A in Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum wages Act. The minimum rates of wages in respect of the said entry were, however, fixed and brought into force with effect from 26th January, 1981. It was hence the contention of the petitioner firm that their establishment which manufactured household utensils and other articles was declared as a scheduled employment for the first time in the year 1977 and the minimum rates of wages were made payable in respect of the said employment only after 26th January, 1981. In view of this development, it was contended in the preliminary objection that the minimum rates of wages fixed for the employment in engineering industry could not be made applicable to the petitioner firm.