GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, CHANDIGARH Vs. AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, U T CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge, in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.12.2001 (Annexure P5) whereby the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 U.T. Chandigarh has directed the petitioner College/Hospital to pay the wages for the period from 3.10.1997 onwards till 31.12.1997 and also held it liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the allowed wages to the applicant from 1.4.2002 onwards till it is not paid. Further compensation at the rate of five times of Rs. 1,184/- i.e. Rs. 5,920/- was also directed to be paid along with interest from 1.4.2002 taking the total to Rs. 7,104/-, in one case, while similarly adjudicating on a total of 33 applications. The challenge is also being made to the subsequent recovery being sought to be effected whereby the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act issued communications dated 23.1.2002 (Annexure P6) and 25.1.2002 (Annexure P7) directing that the said payment be made along with 12% simple interest.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner Hospital/College is that it had allotted work of providing manpower to the Government College/Hospital to one M/s Enter Climax Securities, respondent No.3, w.e.f. 1.11.1997 who was the highest bidder in the tender. Prior to that, M/s National Security & Allied Services, respondent No.2, had been given the said work. It had been made clear that as per the contract, as the person employed by the said contractor would be employees of the new Contractor, for all intents and purposes, and the respondents would ensure that minimum wages would be paid under the prevalent Labour laws. Respondent No.4 had filed a claim petition under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 seeking minimum wages to the tune of Rs. 1,632/-, whereas the claimant was only paid Rs. 1,316/- per month. Reply was filed taking the plea that as per Clause 10(B.1) & 10(B.3), it is the responsibility of the contractor and there was no liability of the hospital. Vide order dated 26.2.1999 (Annexure P3), the claim application was decided in favour of the employee, which was set aside in Civil Writ Petition No. 12594 of 1999 on 30.4.2001(Annexure P4) and the matter was remanded to the authorities. Resultantly, the impugned order has been passed on 31.12.2001 (Annexure P5). The plea taken, accordingly, was that the claim petition filed under the purview of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and the order passed was without jurisdiction.

(3.) The hospital could not be held liable in view of the contract. While admitting the writ petition on 19.8.2002, for regular hearing the operation of the impugned order was directed to be stayed. Perusal of the file would go on to show that when Civil Writ Petition No. 12594 of 1999 came up before this Court, the matter was remanded on the ground that under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (In short "the Act") the word "Scheduled Employment" was there and the definition of an employee was not taken into consideration by the Authority. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Authority to pass order afresh. Resultantly, the impugned order has been passed After admission, counsel for the private respondents-workmen had not put in appearance and this Court was constrained to call upon the legal aid counsel to assist the Court. Accordingly, Mr. J.S.Mehandiratta, Advocate appeared and argued the matter on behalf of the private respondents. Perusal of the impugned order would go on to show that the Authority framed issue No.1 that the applicants are entitled to the difference of the wages claimed in the various applications, if so, with what details and whether any other relief could be granted to them under issue No.2.