SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents. The instant writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.8.2006 passed by the Respondent No. 1, Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad cum Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act.

(2.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for Petitioner that an application was made by the Respondent No. 2, President of the Railway Station Porter Union, Bokaro Railway Station with regard to the 58 porters of Bokaro Steel City, Railway Station demanding payment of minimum wages for the porters of Bokaro Railway Station doing parcel handling work from the period dated 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2005 under minimum wages on the rate fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide notification under the Minimum Wages Act, Published in Gazette of India No. S.O. 512(E) dated 12.7.1994 and directed the Petitioner. South Eastern Railway to pay the difference of wages amounting to Rs. 66,56,912.72. It is further submitted that the aforesaid notification No. S.O.-512(E) dated 12.7.1994 does not cover the Railway Platform Potters and as such the impugned order is bad in law and only fit to be quashed. He has also stated that as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court as reported in CWJC No. 946 of 1997, Respondent No. 1; Regional Labour Commissioner, Central-cum-Authority under Minimum Wages Act cannot decide the matter and the matter can only be decided by CAT and not by any Labour Court. He has further submitted that as per the license issued to the 58 porters for working in the Bokaro Steel City Railway Station platform, as per the agreement in the licence they do part time work of parcel loading and unloading on the railway platform and they made money for the said work for as many hours as they work and they are not covered by the notification nor they are covered by any of the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Cases which has been referred in the judgment which were for the regular parcel loading porters working for 8 hours and as such the impugned order is fit to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents has opposed the same and submitted that those porters are fully covered by the Gazette Notification No. SO-512(E) and it has been held in different judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and other High Courts that they are entitled to get minimum wages as fixed under the notification and as such, no interference of this Court is required.