MANAGER WARRANGAL BRANCH ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT WARRANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent in M.W. Case No. 11/76 dated 30/06/1978. The facts may be briefly stated : The Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, the petitioner herein, has been established to organise handloom weavers into co-operatives. Small handloom weavers were formed into a society, and the Head Office was located at Hyderabad. The petitioner established various model weaving centres, and the activities of the branches are co-ordinated by the petitioner-society. One of the branches was located at Warangal. The controversy in the present case relates to Warangal branch. The Warangal branch of model weaving centre employed a number of weavers. An application was filed on 3 1/12/1973 before the respondent by A. Ramulu and sixty-seven others represented by one Sri M. Krishnamurthy, claiming that the petitioner had not paid the required minimum wages as per G.O. Ms. No. 799, Employment, S.W. (T) Department dated 16/09/1975 as amended by G.O. Rt. No. 104 dated 5/02/1976. The application was signed on behalf of all the applicants by Sri M. Krishnamurthy, and filed under S. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act for Short). Thereupon, the respondent conducted the necessary enquiry. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner raised several pleas objecting to the maintainability of the petition, and also resisted the application on merits. As a result of the enquiry, it was found that some of the persons mentioned as employees were not really the employees of the petitioner, and several others were paid wages in excess of the minimum wage prescribed by the aforesaid Government Orders. Eventually, twenty nine persons were identified as workmen to whom the minimum wage paid fell short of the wage prescribed by the aforesaid Government Orders. The orders passed by the respondent confined only to those twenty nine persons although the application was filed in respect of sixty-eight persons initially. The respondent rejected the contention of the petitioner that the application filed was not maintainable. This objection appears to have been taken on the ground that the applications did not sign individually the application filed. The respondent pointed out that it was not necessary that the workmen should themselves sign the application under S. 20(2) of the Act, and it was permissible for a legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade Union, authorised in writing to act on behalf of the workmen to file an application claiming the payment of minimum wage. The respondent held that the fact that the workmen did not individually sign the application form did not affect the maintainability of the application filed. The respondent did not also accept the contention that the workmen did not authorise Sri M. Krishnamurthy to file the application in question. After consideration of the case on merit the respondent held that in respect of twenty-nine persons who are finally identified, the wages paid by the petitioner fell short of the minimum wage prescribed by the Government under the aforesaid Government Orders. The respondent annexed a detailed statement to the order quantifying the difference in the amount of minimum wage paid. According to that quantification, in respect of the twenty-nine workmen, the minimum wage short paid was ascertained as Rs. 7,290-26 ps. The respondent also directed that compensation equal to five times the difference above referred to, should be paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, the compensation payable was determined at Rs. 36,451-30 ps. In the aggregate, the amount payable by way of difference in the minimum wage and the compensation was determined by the respondent at Rs. 43,741-56 ps. and the petitioner was directed to make the payment accordingly. It is this order of the respondent that has been questioned in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M. Surendra Rao, reiterated his submissions which were already urged before the respondent. Firstly, he contended that the petition filed by Sri M. Krishnamurthy on behalf of sixty-eight workers is not valid, and therefore, the respondent should not have assumed jurisdiction to make an enquiry and pass order pursuant to the application made by Sri M. Krishnamurthy on behalf of sixty-eight workmen. It is pointed out that on behalf of the workmen, A Ramulu whose name appears as the first applicant, was examined. This persons was examined by the applicants to support the claim made claiming that the petitioner did not pay the minimum wage. The said Ramulu deposed before the respondent that the petitioner paid the minimum wage as required by the Act, and he had no claim against the petitioner for payment of any wage. The learned Counsel therefore contends that even the evidence led by the group of applicant did not support the claim that the petitioner did not pay the minimum wage. It was also pointed out that the applicant produced seven more workmen, and some of them stated that they did not know Krishnamurthy who filed the application before the respondent while some others stated that they knew Krishnamurthy; all of them however stated that they received the minimum wage, and they had no claims whatsoever against the petitioner. They further stated that they did not authorise Sri M. Krishnamurthy to file an application before the respondent. The petitioner also produced the Supervisor and the Accountant (M. Sivayya and M. Chandrayya) dealing with the payment of wages, and both the Supervisor as well as the Accountant testified the fact that the petitioner paid the minimum wage prescribed by the orders above cited. The learned Counsel contends that in view of the above testimony, the respondent should have considered the fundamental question, whether the petition filed before him was filed by a person competent to file the same under S. 20(2) of the Act. It was also claimed that the petitioner was paying the wages in accordance with the agreement entered into with the workmen on 2/09/1976, that is to say after the passing of the aforesaid orders by the Government fixing the minimum wage. It is submitted that several workmen felt that the minimum wage prescribed under the aforesaid Government Orders would affect them prejudicial, and, consequently, the petitioner and the representatives of the workmen referred the matter to the Commissioner of Labour, and after protracted consideration, it was felt that the wages being paid by the petitioner were not less than the minimum wage prescribed by the aforesaid orders. It is stated that the matter was also represented to the Labour Minister, and after a comprehensive discussion, the parties came to an arrangement, and the workmen representatives filed a letter before the Secretary, Labour Department, that payment of wages then existing would cover the payment of minimum wage prescribed by the Government Orders dated 1 6/09/1975 and 5/02/1976. Following the agreement reached with the good offices of the Government, an agreement was executed on 2/09/1976 which was signed by the representatives of the workmen specifying the rates at which the wages should be paid. The learned Counsel contends that the payment of wages according to this agreement was not below the rate prescribed as minimum wage by the aforesaid two Government Orders. It is therefore submitted that on merits also the respondent was in error in coming to the conclusion that there was any short fall in the payment of minimum wages.

(3.) Finally it is contended that the twenty nine persons finally identified as the workmen to whom minimum wages were not paid, included the eight persons who appeared before the respondent and admitted that they had no claims against the petitioner. Even so, the respondent held that are entitled to the payment of the alleged short-fall, and granted such payment as well as compensation to these eight persons. The learned Counsel contends that the finding of the respondent that there was short-fall in the payment of minimum wages payable to these eight persons was erroneous, and consequently the direction to pay to these eight persons the alleged difference in payment of minimum wage together with the compensation was unwarranted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also endeavoured to show with reference to the statistics that the over all amount of wages paid to the workmen is not less than the minimum wage prescribed, although the wage paid to the workers for weft fell short of the wage prescribed by the aforesaid Government Orders for work in that department. It was pointed out that the petitioner was paying greater wages for bobbins winding, pirn winding, warping and drafting, so that the aggregate of wages paid to the workmen was in accordance with the Government Orders specified above. It was pointed out that this aspect was considered by the Government when representations were made by the workmen after the receipt of the aforesaid Government Orders. Thus, on merits also, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that there was no case for holding that the petitioner had been paying less than the minimum wages. It is also submitted that in any event the respondent did not exercise discretion judiciously in granting compensation, especially when the workmen themselves did not claim any compensation in the application filed by them. It is pointed out that in the application filed, against the column claiming compensation, the workmen showed nil so that the respondent should have realised that the workmen were not claiming any compensation. In the absence of any claim, contends the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no justification for the grant of compensation equal to five times the amount of minimum wages. On the above grounds, the Order of the respondent had been assailed.