SECRETARY BIRANARASI Vs. NILAKANTHA SRANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -Management, challenging the order dated 03.05.2012, passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in Industrial Disputes Misc. Case No. 86 of 2010, allowing the application of the workman -opposite party, filed under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act" in short), computing the claim of the workman towards differential wages for the period from 01.05.2007 to 31.10.2010 at Rs. 40,500/ - and directing the Management to pay the same. The case of the petitioner -Management is that as the claim of the workman made under Section 33 -C(2) of the I.D. Act for payment of differential wages on the basis of the minimum wages notified by the State Government from time to time, the same could not have been adjudicated by the Labour Court. It is the plea of the petitioner -Management that the application filed by the workman under Section 33 -C(2) of the I.D. Act for implementing the minimum wages cannot be adjudicated by the Labour Court and the proper procedure is for the workman to approach the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act. In this regard, it is submitted that as the claim made by the workman is required to be adjudicated upon by the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the same cannot be the subject matter of an application under Section 33 -C(2) of the I.D. Act and only the admitted claim and/or entitlement can be adjudicated by the Labour Court. It is the further plea of the petitioner -Management that as it is a Cooperative Society, the minimum wages notified by the State Government is not applicable to the employees of the Cooperative Societies.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -Management submits that even other wise as the workman had filed an affidavit in evidence before the Labour Court claiming Rs. 36,000/ - towards differential amount as per the minimum wages fixed by the State Government for the period from 01.05.2007 to 31.10.2010, the impugned order computing the same to be Rs. 40,500/ - and directing the petitioner -Management to pay the same is not proper and justified.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the workman -opposite party has relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Somiben Mathurbai Vasava Vs. Lalji Hakku Parmar Leather Works Company, : (1984) II -LLJ 381 Gujarat, where in a similar case, the Hon'ble Court has held that there cannot be any doubt that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain application for recovery of minimum wages and there is no provision in the Minimum Wages Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33 -C of the I.D. Act.