<\/p>\n
(and connected appeal)<\/strong><\/p>\n DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/12\/1956<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b>BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. DAS, S.K.<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b>CITATION: 1957 AIR\u00a0 227\u00a0 1957 SCR\u00a0 359<\/b><\/p>\n ACT:<\/b> Minimum basic wages-Basic work-load–Extra wages\u00a0 for\u00a0 work done in excess of basic work-load-Writ of certiorari-When to be granted-Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (XI Of 1948), ss. 3. 5(2) and 20-Constitution of India, \u00a0Art. 226.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b>HEADNOTE:<\/b> The labourers were being paid the basic wages of as. 8\/- for male\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 and as. 6\/- for female\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 for\u00a0 the work-load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green tea leaves respectively each day.\u00a0 If the labourers\u00a0 plucked larger\u00a0 quantities of leaves they were paid extra\u00a0 wages\u00a0 at the\u00a0 rate\u00a0 of 6 Ps. per seer in excess of 16\u00a0 seers\u00a0 and\u00a0 12 seers\u00a0 respectively.\u00a0 The Government issued\u00a0 a\u00a0 notification under\u00a0 S.\u00a0 3 read with S. 5 (2) of the\u00a0 Minimum\u00a0 Wages\u00a0 Act, 1948, increasing the rates of basic wages to as.\u00a0 I2\/and as. 11\/-\u00a0 respectively.\u00a0\u00a0 The management thereafter\u00a0 refused\u00a0 to make any extra payment to the labourers at the rate of 6 Ps. per seer unless the leaves plucked by them exceeded 24 seers and 22 seers respectively.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Held,\u00a0 that the sole intention of the Government in\u00a0 issuing the\u00a0 notification\u00a0 was\u00a0 to increase the\u00a0 basic\u00a0 wages\u00a0 while maintaining the same basic work-load or task assigned to the labourers,\u00a0 so\u00a0 that\u00a0 whatever extra work was\u00a0 done\u00a0 by\u00a0 the labourers\u00a0 in\u00a0 excess of the existing work-load or\u00a0 task\u00a0 of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of tea leaves by the male and female\u00a0 labourers respectively, bad still to be paid for\u00a0 at the rate of 6 Ps. per seer. Quaere:\u00a0\u00a0 Whether the claim for the extra wages amounts to a claim\u00a0 arising out of the payment of less than\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum rates\u00a0 of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 within the meaning of s.\u00a0 20\u00a0 (2)\u00a0 of \u00a0the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. A\u00a0 writ of certiorari cannot be had as a matter of\u00a0 course. The\u00a0 High\u00a0 Court\u00a0 is entitled to refuse the writ\u00a0 if\u00a0 it\u00a0 is satisfied that there was no failure of justice.\u00a0 The Supreme Court declines to interfere, in appeal, with the\u00a0 discretion of the High Court unless it is satisfied that the justice of the case requires such interference.<\/p>\n JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: <\/b>Civil Appeals Nos. 279 and 280 of 1955. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated July 7 1953, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 147 and 148 of 1952, 47 360 C.\u00a0\u00a0 K. Dophtary, Solicitor-General of India, P. K. Goswami, S.\u00a0 N. Mukherji and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants in\u00a0 both appeals. Purshottam Tricumdas and Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 280\/56. Naunit Lal, for respondent No. I in both Appeals. 1956.\u00a0 December 21.\u00a0 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-,These two appeals with certificates under\u00a0 Art. 133\u00a0 (1)\u00a0 (c)\u00a0 of the Constitution are\u00a0 directed\u00a0 against\u00a0 a judgment of the High Court of Judicature in Assam dismissing the\u00a0 appellants’ application under Art. 226 challenging\u00a0 the orders\u00a0 -of\u00a0 the\u00a0 first respondent Shri B.\u00a0 L.\u00a0 Sen,\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, whereby he allowed the\u00a0 applications filed\u00a0 on behalf of the labourers employed in the\u00a0 Teok\u00a0 Tea Estate\u00a0 and\u00a0 the Dalim Tea Estate under section\u00a0 20\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Minimum\u00a0 Wages\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 1948 (Act\u00a0 XI\u00a0 of\u00a0 1948),\u00a0 hereinafter referred to as the Act. On March 11, 1952, the Government of Assam, in exercise\u00a0 of the powers conferred by s. 3 read with sub-s. (2) of s. 5 of the Act issued the following notification:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ” No. GLR. 352\/51\/56.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section\u00a0 3\u00a0 read with sub-section (2) of section\u00a0 5\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Minimum\u00a0 Wages\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 1948 (XI of\u00a0 1948),\u00a0 as\u00a0 amended,\u00a0 the Governor\u00a0 of\u00a0 Assam,\u00a0 having considered the\u00a0 advice\u00a0 of\u00a0 the committee\u00a0 appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1)\u00a0 of section 5 of the said Act, is pleased to fix minimum\u00a0 wages, which will come into force with effect from the 30th\u00a0 March, 1952,\u00a0 consisting of basic wages and dearness\u00a0 allowance\u00a0 in terms\u00a0 of\u00a0 clause (1) of sub-section 1 of section 4\u00a0 of\u00a0 the said\u00a0 Act, at the rates as specified in the schedule\u00a0 hereto annexed payable to employees employed in tea plantations\u00a0 in the different districts of Assam. 2.\u00a0\u00a0 These rates are exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workers\u00a0 in\u00a0 respect\u00a0 of supplies of\u00a0 foodstuffs\u00a0 and\u00a0 other essential\u00a0\u00a0 commodities\u00a0 and\u00a0 other\u00a0 amenities\u00a0 which\u00a0\u00a0 will continue unaffected. -The existing 361 tasks and hours of work may continue until further orders. SCHEDULE. 1.\u00a0\u00a0 ORDINARY -UNSKILLED LABOUR Adult\u00a0 male.\u00a0 Adult female. (16 years & above) (16\u00a0 years\u00a0 & above) Basic\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 D.A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Total.\u00a0\u00a0 BasicD.A.Total. wage.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 wage. (p.d.)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (p.d.) (p.d.)(p.d.)(p.d.)(p.d.) 2. Rest\u00a0 Rs. of Assam\u00a0 As.12\/-As.6\/-1 \/21-As. 11\/-As. 5- Valley. By notification No. GLR. 44\/51, dated the 16th April,\u00a0 1952, the\u00a0 said\u00a0 Government\u00a0 introduced the\u00a0 Minimum\u00a0 Wages\u00a0 Rules which, inter alia, provided: “Rule\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 24.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Number\u00a0 of\u00a0 hours\u00a0 of\u00a0 work\u00a0\u00a0 which\u00a0\u00a0 shall constitute\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a normal working day.- (1)\u00a0 The number of hours which shall constitute normal working day shall be- (a)in the case of an adult, 9 hours; subject to a\u00a0 maximum of 48 hours in a week; ……………………………………………”<\/p>\n By another notification No. GLR. 352\/51 dated May 12,\u00a0 1952, the\u00a0 said\u00a0 Government\u00a0 explained\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 word\u00a0 ”\u00a0 may\u00a0 ” mentioned\u00a0 in\u00a0 the notification dated March 11,\u00a0 1952,\u00a0 will have the force of ” shall “. The result was that in cl.\u00a0 (2) of\u00a0 the\u00a0 said notification, the last sentence ran\u00a0 as:\u00a0 “The existing\u00a0 tasks\u00a0 and\u00a0 hours of\u00a0 work\u00a0 shall\u00a0 continue\u00a0 until further orders. Prior\u00a0 to the fixation of the minimum wages\u00a0 (consisting\u00a0 of basic\u00a0 wages\u00a0 and\u00a0 dearness\u00a0 allowance\u00a0 as\u00a0 aforesaid,\u00a0\u00a0 the labourers\u00a0 engaged\u00a0 in\u00a0 plucking tea leave,%\u00a0 in\u00a0 these\u00a0 tea estates\u00a0 used to be paid basic wages for male\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 at as.\u00a0 8\/- per day for plucking 16 seers of green\u00a0 leaves\u00a0 and for\u00a0 female\u00a0 labourers at as. 6\/- per day\u00a0 for\u00a0 plucking\u00a0 12 seers\u00a0 of green leaves.\u00a0 This was the work-load or\u00a0 task\u00a0 in respect\u00a0 of\u00a0 which-the basic wages of as. 8\/-\u00a0 and\u00a0 as.\u00a0 6\/- respectively\u00a0 were\u00a0 paid to these labourers apart\u00a0 from\u00a0 the dearness allowance in addition to such basic wages.\u00a0 If\u00a0 the labourers\u00a0 plucked\u00a0 larger quantities of green\u00a0 leaves\u00a0 they used to be 362<\/p>\n paid\u00a0 by way of ticca extra wages at the rate of 6\u00a0 ps.\u00a0 per seer\u00a0 in excess of 16 seers and 12 seers\u00a0 respectively.\u00a0\u00a0 It may\u00a0 be noted that -the payment of basic wages on the\u00a0 above computation also worked out at the rate of 6 ps. per seer of green leaves plucked by the labourers. Even\u00a0 after\u00a0 the fixation of the minimum wages by\u00a0 the\u00a0 said notification, the managers of these tea-estates continued to pay to the labourers wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer\u00a0 of green leaves plucked by them.\u00a0 They, however, in view of the fact that as. 12\/- per day were fixed as the basic wages for the male labourers and as.\u00a0 II \/- per day as the basic wages for the female labourers, refused to make any extra\u00a0 payment to\u00a0 them\u00a0 on the basis of 6 ps. per seer\u00a0 unless\u00a0 the\u00a0 green leaves\u00a0 plucked\u00a0 by\u00a0 them exceeded 24\u00a0 seers\u00a0 and\u00a0 22\u00a0 seers respectively, thus maintaining their old standard of payment on\u00a0 the\u00a0 basis of 6 ps. per seer.\u00a0 The\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 contended that the existing work-load or task at the date of the\u00a0 said notification\u00a0 was 16 seers for male labourers and\u00a0 12\u00a0 seers for\u00a0 female labourers and they were entitled to\u00a0 such\u00a0 extra payment at the rate of 6 ps. per seer for leaves plucked\u00a0 by them\u00a0 in excess of -the 16 seers and 12 seers\u00a0 respectively. There\u00a0 was a difference thus in payment, of as. 4\/- per\u00a0 day in\u00a0 the\u00a0 case of male labourers and as. 51- per day\u00a0 in\u00a0 the case of female labourers and they claimed that the\u00a0 managers of\u00a0 the tea estates should pay them the basic wages\u00a0 of\u00a0 as. 12\/per day and as.\u00a0 I I\/- per day respectively for the work- load or task of 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers for female\u00a0 labourers and extra wages at the rate of 6\u00a0 ps.\u00a0 per seer\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0 leaves\u00a0 plucked\u00a0 by\u00a0 them\u00a0 in\u00a0 excess\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 those quantities.<\/p>\n This\u00a0\u00a0 claim\u00a0 of\u00a0 theirs\u00a0 was\u00a0 the\u00a0 subject-matter\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the applications\u00a0 filed\u00a0 on\u00a0 their\u00a0 behalf\u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner,\u00a0 Sibsagar,\u00a0 under s. 20(2) of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act.\u00a0\u00a0 The applicants\u00a0 asked\u00a0 for\u00a0 directions under\u00a0 a.\u00a0 20(3)\u00a0 to\u00a0 the managers,\u00a0 of the tea estates for payment of the\u00a0 difference between\u00a0 the minimum wages fixed by the Government\u00a0 and\u00a0 the wages\u00a0 actually paid to them from March 30, 1952, which\u00a0 was the\u00a0 date from which the notification came into force.\u00a0\u00a0 The managers of the 363 estates contested these applications mainly on two\u00a0 grounds; viz., (1) that the applications were not maintainable\u00a0 under s.\u00a0 20 of the Act, and (2) that there was no fixed\u00a0 workload or task in respect of plucking for earning daily basic wages before\u00a0 the introduction of the minimum wages.\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner,\u00a0 Sibsagar,\u00a0 who was\u00a0 the\u00a0 authority\u00a0 appointed under the Act to hear the claims arising out of the \u00a0payment of less than the minimum rates of wages to these\u00a0 labourers, entertained\u00a0 the applications, recorded evidence\u00a0 and\u00a0 heard arguments addressed to him by both the parties.<\/p>\n As\u00a0 regards\u00a0 the\u00a0 first\u00a0 objection, he\u00a0 held\u00a0 that,\u00a0 if\u00a0 the applicants’\u00a0 version\u00a0 was\u00a0 true there was a\u00a0 clear\u00a0 case\u00a0 of payment\u00a0 of\u00a0 less\u00a0 than\u00a0 the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 wages\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 by\u00a0 the Government\u00a0 and the applications were maintainable under\u00a0 s. 20 of the Act.\u00a0 As regards the second objection, he came\u00a0 to the\u00a0 conclusion\u00a0 on the evidence recorded\u00a0 before\u00a0 him\u00a0 that there was a work-load or task of 16 seers for male labourers and\u00a0 12 seers for female labourers in respect of\u00a0 the\u00a0 daily basic\u00a0 wages of as. 8\/- and as. 6\/- respectively\u00a0 earned\u00a0 by them\u00a0 before the fixation of the minimum wages by\u00a0 the\u00a0 said notification,\u00a0 that such work-load or task was the basis\u00a0 of the fixation of the minimum wages consisting, inter alia, of the\u00a0 basic wages of as. 12\/- per day for male labourers\u00a0 and as.\u00a0\u00a0 II\/-\u00a0 per\u00a0 day\u00a0 for\u00a0 female\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 and\u00a0 that\u00a0 the labourers\u00a0 were,\u00a0 therefore, entitled to extra\u00a0 payment\u00a0 for green\u00a0 leaves plucked by them in excess of 16 seers\u00a0 and\u00a0 12 seers\u00a0 respectively\u00a0 at\u00a0 the rate of 6\u00a0 ps.\u00a0 per\u00a0 seer.\u00a0\u00a0 He accordingly ordered that the managers must pay the labourers engaged\u00a0 in plucking tea leaves the minimum basic\u00a0 wages\u00a0 at the\u00a0 rate of as. 12\/- per day to the male labourers\u00a0 for\u00a0 16 seers\u00a0 of\u00a0 green leaves and as. 11\/- per day to\u00a0 the\u00a0 female labourers\u00a0 for 12 seers of green leaves and extra\u00a0 wages\u00a0 at the\u00a0 rate\u00a0 of \u00a06 ps. per seer for green\u00a0 leaves\u00a0 plucked\u00a0 in excess of those quantities. The\u00a0 managers\u00a0 of the estates thereupon\u00a0 filed\u00a0 applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court\u00a0 of Judicature in Assam raising the -same contentions which\u00a0 had been\u00a0 negatived by the Deputy Commissioner,\u00a0 Sibsagar.\u00a0\u00a0 The High Court dismissed 364<\/p>\n <\/p>\n these\u00a0 applications and granted the certificates under\u00a0 Art. 133(1)(c) and that is how these appeals come before us. It\u00a0 is\u00a0 urged in the first instance\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification dated March 11, 1952, fixed only I a minimum time rate’\u00a0 and no more.\u00a0 Under s. 3 (2) of the Act it was competent to\u00a0 the Government to fix (a) a minimum rate of wages for time\u00a0 work (called ” a minimum time rate”), (b) a minimum rate of wages for\u00a0 piece work (called ” a minimum piece rate “) or\u00a0 (c)\u00a0 a minimum rate to be applied in the case of employees employed on piece work for the purpose of securing to such, employees a\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 rate of wages on a time work basis (called\u00a0 ”\u00a0 a guaranteed time rate-“) and what was done by the\u00a0 Government was to fix ” a minimum time rate” within the meaning of s. 3 (2)\u00a0 (a)\u00a0 so that the labourers were to be\u00a0 paid\u00a0 the\u00a0 basic wages mentioned in the Schedule regardless of their out-turn of work.\u00a0 If this contention is correct, the labourers would not\u00a0 be\u00a0 entitled to any extra wages for the\u00a0 quantities\u00a0 of green leaves plucked by them in excess of the 16 seers or 12 seers per day which was alleged to be the existing work-load or task at the date of the notification.\u00a0 It is, therefore’, urged that prior to such fixation of minimum wages there was no\u00a0 work-load or task for the labourers engaged in\u00a0 plucking tea leaves.\u00a0 This contention is obviously unsound.\u00a0 Both the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the High Court found as a fact\u00a0 that\u00a0 before\u00a0 the fixation of the\u00a0 minimum\u00a0 ‘wages\u00a0 as above,\u00a0 there was a basic work-load or task of 16\u00a0 seers\u00a0 of leaves for the male labourers and 12 seers of leaves for the female\u00a0 labourers.\u00a0 This was proved by the evidence\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Hazira Moharers of these estates and this was recognized\u00a0 by the\u00a0 Government\u00a0 itself when it stated in\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification that\u00a0 ” the existing tasks and hours of work shall\u00a0 continue until further orders.” If the minimum basic wages were fixed irrespective\u00a0 of\u00a0 existing work-load or task\u00a0 and\u00a0 what\u00a0 was fixed\u00a0 was\u00a0 ”\u00a0 a minimum time rate ”\u00a0 as\u00a0 contended\u00a0 by\u00a0 the appellants there was no need whatever to mention this in the notification.\u00a0\u00a0 The direction that the existing workload\u00a0 or task was to continue until further orders on the 365<\/p>\n contrary goes to show that the basic wages mentioned in\u00a0 the Schedule\u00a0 were correlated to the existing workload\u00a0 or\u00a0 task and\u00a0 as.\u00a0 12\/- for the male labourers and as. 11\/-\u00a0 for\u00a0 the female labourers were fixed in regard to the existing\u00a0 work- load or task of 16 seers of tea leaves to be plucked by\u00a0 the male\u00a0 labourers and 12 seers of tea leaves to be plucked\u00a0 by the female labourers. It is argued that the continuance of the existing\u00a0 work-load or\u00a0 task which was thus provided for had no relation to\u00a0 the basic\u00a0 wages\u00a0 which\u00a0 were\u00a0 fixed for\u00a0 the\u00a0 male\u00a0 and\u00a0 female labourers respectively but was only intended to prevent\u00a0 the employers\u00a0 from\u00a0 increasing the existing work-load\u00a0 or\u00a0 task with\u00a0 a\u00a0 view to make up for the increase\u00a0 in\u00a0 basic\u00a0 wages. This argument, however, does not take count of the fact that there\u00a0 was existing at the date of the notification a\u00a0 work- load or task which was the basis of the payments used to\u00a0 be made\u00a0 to the labourers, the basic wages paid to\u00a0 them\u00a0 being calculated\u00a0 at\u00a0 the\u00a0 rate of 6 ps. per seer\u00a0 of\u00a0 tea\u00a0 leaves plucked\u00a0 by\u00a0 them.\u00a0 The labourers were thus being\u00a0 paid\u00a0 the basic\u00a0 wages\u00a0 of as. 8\/- for male labourers\u00a0 and\u00a0 as.\u00a0 6\/for female\u00a0 labourers for the work-load or task of\u00a0 plucking\u00a0 16 seers\u00a0 and 12 seers of tea leaves respectively and the\u00a0 sole intention of the Government in issuing the notification\u00a0 was to\u00a0 increase these basic wages of as. 8\/and as. 6\/-\u00a0 to\u00a0 as. 12\/-\u00a0 and as.\u00a0 II\/- respectively while maintaining the\u00a0 same basic\u00a0 work-load\u00a0 or task assigned to the\u00a0 male\u00a0 and\u00a0 female labourers.\u00a0\u00a0 If\u00a0 the intention was not\u00a0 to\u00a0 correlate\u00a0 these basic\u00a0 wages\u00a0 to the basic work-load or task\u00a0 which\u00a0 already existed\u00a0 and if the same state of affairs was\u00a0 to\u00a0 continue, viz., that the labourers would continue to be paid the basic wages\u00a0 on the computation of 6 ps. per seer of green\u00a0 leaves plucked\u00a0 by them, there was no sense whatever in\u00a0 increasing the basic wages from as. 8\/- to as. 12\/- for male\u00a0 labourers and\u00a0 from as. 6\/- to as.\u00a0 II\/- for female labourers\u00a0 as\u00a0 was sought\u00a0 to be done by issuing the notification in\u00a0 question. The\u00a0 acceptance\u00a0 of the contention of the\u00a0 appellants\u00a0 would mean\u00a0 that no advantage whatever was sought to be\u00a0 conferred by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Government\u00a0 on the labourers\u00a0 engaged\u00a0 in\u00a0 plucking leaves in these tea estates which intention can scarcely be 366<\/p>\n attributed to the Government.\u00a0 We are, therefore, of opinion that\u00a0 what was fixed by the notification was not merely ”\u00a0 a minimum time rate” irrespective of the existing work-load or task which used to be performed by the labourers- but was a’ minimum\u00a0 wage\u00a0 which,\u00a0 though\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 for\u00a0 time\u00a0 work,\u00a0\u00a0 was necessarily\u00a0 correlated to the work-load or task then\u00a0 being performed by these labourers so that whatever extra work was done by the labourers in excess of the existing work-load or task of plucking 16 seers of tea leaves in the case of\u00a0 male labourers\u00a0 and 12 seers of tea leaves in the case of\u00a0 female labourers had to be paid for in accordance with the practice then prevailing, whether it was based on agreement or\u00a0 ticca or\u00a0 custom, at the rate of 6 ps. per seer.\u00a0 The\u00a0 conclusions reached\u00a0 in\u00a0 this behalf both by\u00a0 the\u00a0 Deputy\u00a0 Commissioner, Sibsagar,\u00a0 and\u00a0 the High Court are, therefore,\u00a0 correct\u00a0 and cannot be challenged.<\/p>\n The appellants, however, contend that this is not a case\u00a0 of payment\u00a0 of\u00a0 less than the minimum rates of\u00a0 wages\u00a0 and\u00a0 the claims, if any, of the labourers do not fall within s. 20 of the Act.\u00a0 The tea estates in question have never refused\u00a0 to pay and are in fact paying to the labourers the basic\u00a0 wages of\u00a0 as. 12\/- per day for male labourers and as.\u00a0 II\u00a0 \/-\u00a0 per day\u00a0 for female labourers and the grievance, if any, of\u00a0 the labourers\u00a0 is that they have not been paid the\u00a0 extra\u00a0 wages calculated\u00a0 on\u00a0 the basis of 6 ps. per seer for\u00a0 tea\u00a0 leaves plucked by them in excess of the basic work-load or task\u00a0 of 16\u00a0 seers\u00a0 for\u00a0 male\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 and\u00a0 12\u00a0 seers\u00a0 for\u00a0 female labourers.\u00a0 This claim of the labourers, therefore,\u00a0 amounts to a claim for extra wages over and above the basic wages of as. 12\/- and as.\u00a0 II\/- per day respectively which are\u00a0 being paid\u00a0 to them and, therefore, is not a claim arising out\u00a0 of the\u00a0 payment of less than the minimum rates of wages\u00a0 within the\u00a0 meaning\u00a0 of\u00a0 s.\u00a0 20(1)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Act\u00a0 and\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner,\u00a0 Sibsagar,\u00a0 had no jurisdiction\u00a0 to\u00a0 entertain such claim. Section 20 so far as is material for our purposes provides: ” 20.\u00a0 Claims.- (1)The\u00a0 appropriate Government may, by notification\u00a0 in\u00a0 the official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner 367<\/p>\n for Workmen’s Compensation or other officer with\u00a0 experience as\u00a0 a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary\u00a0 Magistrate to\u00a0 be\u00a0 the Authority to hear and decide for\u00a0 any\u00a0 specified area\u00a0 all\u00a0 claims arising out of payment of\u00a0 less\u00a0 than\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 rates\u00a0 of wages to employees employed or\u00a0 paid\u00a0 in. that area. (2)Where an -employee is paid less than the minimum rates of wages\u00a0 fixed\u00a0 for\u00a0 his class of work\u00a0 under\u00a0 this\u00a0 Act,\u00a0 the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any\u00a0 official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act\u00a0 on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with\u00a0 the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may\u00a0 apply\u00a0 to\u00a0 such Authority for a\u00a0 direction\u00a0 under\u00a0 sub. section (3):…………… (3)When\u00a0\u00a0 any\u00a0\u00a0 application\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 sub-section\u00a0\u00a0 (2)\u00a0\u00a0 is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and\u00a0 the employer\u00a0 or\u00a0 give them an opportunity of being\u00a0 heard,\u00a0 and after\u00a0 such\u00a0 further\u00a0 enquiry\u00a0 if any\u00a0 as\u00a0 it\u00a0 may\u00a0 consider necessary,\u00a0 may, without prejudice to any other\u00a0 penalty\u00a0 to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct\u00a0 the payment\u00a0 to the employee of the amount by which the\u00a0 minimum wages\u00a0 payable\u00a0 to\u00a0 him exceed the\u00a0 amount\u00a0 actually\u00a0 paid,, together\u00a0 with\u00a0 the\u00a0 payment of\u00a0 such\u00a0 compensation\u00a0 as\u00a0 the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the\u00a0 amount of such excess and the Authority may direct payment of\u00a0 such compensation\u00a0 in\u00a0 cases\u00a0 where the excess- is\u00a0 paid\u00a0 by\u00a0 the employer\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 employee\u00a0 before\u00a0 the\u00a0 disposal\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the application.<\/p>\n (6)\u00a0 Every\u00a0 direction of the Authority\u00a0 under\u00a0 this\u00a0 section shall be final. It -is argued that the authority appointed under s. 20(1) of the Act is invested with the powers of hearing and\u00a0 deciding claims\u00a0 arising out of the payment of less than the\u00a0 minimum rates\u00a0 of wages and is authorised to hear the applicant\u00a0 and the\u00a0 employer\u00a0 or give them an opportunity of\u00a0 being\u00a0 heard, and,\u00a0 after\u00a0 such\u00a0 further\u00a0 enquiry,\u00a0 as\u00a0 it\u00a0 may\u00a0\u00a0 consider necessary,\u00a0 to\u00a0 give directions under s. 20(3)\u00a0 of\u00a0 the \u00a0Act which directions are final and not subject to any appeal or 368<\/p>\n revision by any higher authority.\u00a0 Such drastic powers could not\u00a0 have\u00a0 been\u00a0 meant\u00a0 to\u00a0 be\u00a0 exercised\u00a0 when\u00a0 there\u00a0\u00a0 are complicated questions of law or fact but could be\u00a0 exercised only\u00a0 in cases where the, quantum of minimum wages fixed\u00a0 by the\u00a0 notification\u00a0 in question could be\u00a0 determined\u00a0 by\u00a0 the authority\u00a0 on a plain reading of the terms,\u00a0 thereof.\u00a0\u00a0 Then and\u00a0 -then\u00a0 only would the authority\u00a0 have\u00a0 jurisdiction\u00a0 to entertain\u00a0 such\u00a0 claims and give the\u00a0 necessary\u00a0 direction,% having\u00a0 the\u00a0 attribute of finality.\u00a0 In\u00a0 the\u00a0 instant\u00a0 cases before\u00a0 us,\u00a0 not only did the\u00a0 matters\u00a0 involve\u00a0 complicated questions\u00a0 of fact which required recording of\u00a0 evidence\u00a0 by the authority but they also involved the construction of the notification which was by no means felicitously worded.\u00a0 The existing\u00a0 tasks which were to continue until further\u00a0 orders were not at all patent and if the determination thereof\u00a0 had to be made by the authority appointed under s. 20(1) of\u00a0 the Act,\u00a0 it\u00a0 would involve, in cases of dispute,\u00a0 recording\u00a0 of considerable evidence and an adjudication of the same\u00a0 after a\u00a0 consideration\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 arguments\u00a0 advanced\u00a0 before\u00a0\u00a0 the authority by both the parties.<\/p>\n There is in the instant cases moreover a further\u00a0 difficulty and\u00a0 it is that there are two rival contentions\u00a0 which\u00a0 can, with\u00a0 equal force, be urged by the respective parties.\u00a0\u00a0 The appellants contend that they have all throughout been paying to\u00a0 the\u00a0 laborers,\u00a0 after the date of\u00a0 the\u00a0 notification\u00a0 in question,\u00a0 basic wages at the rate of as. 12\/- per\u00a0 day\u00a0 for male\u00a0 labourers\u00a0 and\u00a0 as.\u00a0 1 1 \/- per\u00a0 day\u00a0 for\u00a0 the\u00a0 female labourers\u00a0 and there is no instance which has been cited\u00a0 on behalf\u00a0 of\u00a0 the respondents where, anything\u00a0 less\u00a0 then\u00a0 the minimum\u00a0 basic wages thus fixed by the Government\u00a0 has\u00a0 ever been\u00a0 paid.\u00a0 The claim of the labourers comes to\u00a0 this\u00a0 that they\u00a0 have not been paid the extra wages for plucking\u00a0 green leaves in excess of the basic work-load or task of 16 \u00a0seers and\u00a0 12\u00a0 seers\u00a0 respectively.\u00a0 Such claim\u00a0 for\u00a0 extra\u00a0 wages certainly\u00a0 does\u00a0 not amount to a claim arising\u00a0 out\u00a0 of\u00a0 the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages.\u00a0 It is,\u00a0 on the other hand, contended on behalf of the respondents\u00a0 that the\u00a0 basic wages of as. 12\/. per day for male labourers\u00a0 and as.\u00a0 II\/- per 369<\/p>\n day\u00a0 for female labourers fixed under the\u00a0 notification\u00a0 are correlated\u00a0 -to the existing work-load, or task of\u00a0 plucking green leaves weighing 16 Beers and 12 seers respectively and if they are entitled to the payment of these basic wages\u00a0 on their\u00a0 putting forward that much quantity of work, the\u00a0 non- payment by the managers.of these tea’ estates to them of any extra\u00a0 wages on the computation of 6 ps. per extra seer\u00a0 un- less\u00a0 they\u00a0 plucked 24 seers and 22 seers\u00a0 of\u00a0 green\u00a0 leaves respectively\u00a0 is\u00a0 tantamount to nonpayment of\u00a0 the;\u00a0 minimum basic\u00a0 wages of as. 12\/- and as. 11\/- respectively as\u00a0 fixed in the notification.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n “We do not, propose to decide this question of\u00a0 jurisdiction as\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0 instant\u00a0 cases we\u00a0 have,\u00a0 in\u00a0 addition\u00a0 to\u00a0 the determination\u00a0 of\u00a0 the Deputy\u00a0 Commissioner,\u00a0 Sibsagar,\u00a0 the adjudication of the main disputes between the parties by the High\u00a0 Court itself.\u00a0 I Whatever infirmities\u00a0 might\u00a0 possibly have\u00a0\u00a0 attached\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0 the\u00a0 orders\u00a0 passed\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner,\u00a0\u00a0 Sibsagar,\u00a0\u00a0 on\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 score\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 want\u00a0\u00a0 of jurisdiction, we feel that having regard to the circumstance that\u00a0 the matters have been pending since\u00a0 September,\u00a0 1952, right up to the end of the year 1956, no useful purpose will be\u00a0 served by our interfering at this stage, as\u00a0 the\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the High Court both came to\u00a0 the same\u00a0 conclusion, a conclusion which we also\u00a0 have\u00a0 endorsed above, that the labourers are entitled to be paid the\u00a0 basic wages of as. 12\/-per day,for male labourers and as. 11\/- per day\u00a0 for\u00a0 female\u00a0 labourers for the work.:load\u00a0 or\u00a0 task\u00a0 of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green leaves\u00a0 respectively and–\u00a0 they are -entitled to extra wages for every\u00a0 seer\u00a0 of green\u00a0 leaves\u00a0 plucked\u00a0 by.\u00a0 them I\u00a0 over\u00a0 and\u00a0 above\u00a0 these quantities\u00a0 of 16 seers and 12 ,seers respectively, at\u00a0 the. computation of 6 Ps. per seer. There\u00a0 are\u00a0 moreover\u00a0 special\u00a0 reasons\u00a0 why\u00a0 we\u00a0 should\u00a0 not interfere\u00a0 with\u00a0 the\u00a0 orders\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Deputy\u00a0 Commissioner, Sibsagar,\u00a0 in these appeals.\u00a0 The matters do not come to\u00a0 us by\u00a0 way\u00a0 of appeal directly from the orders\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar.\u00a0 They were the subject, in the first instance, of proceedings under Art. 226 of the\u00a0 Constitution in the High Court 370 of\u00a0 Assam.<\/p>\n Proceedings\u00a0 by way of certiorari\u00a0 are\u00a0 not\u00a0 of course\u00a0 “.\u00a0 (Vide\u00a0 Halsbury’s\u00a0 Laws\u00a0 of\u00a0 England’,\u00a0 Hailsham Edition, Vol. 9, para 1480 and 1481, pp. 877-878).\u00a0 The High Court\u00a0 of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it\u00a0 was satisfied that there was no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are directed, against the orders of the\u00a0 High. -Court\u00a0 in applications under Art. 226, we could\u00a0 refuse\u00a0 to interfere\u00a0 unless we are satisfied that the justice of\u00a0 the, case\u00a0 requires it.\u00a0 But we are not so satisfied. We\u00a0 are\u00a0 of opinion\u00a0 that, having regard to the merits which\u00a0 have\u00a0 been concurrently foundint favour of the respondents both by\u00a0 the De-Duty\u00a0 Commissioner,,\u00a0 Sibsagar, and the High\u00a0 (Court,\u00a0 we should decline to interfere.<\/p>\n This being the point of substance which has been decided\u00a0 in favour\u00a0 of the respondents, we are of the opinion\u00a0 that\u00a0 the appeals are liable to be dismissed.\u00a0 We accordingly\u00a0 dismiss them but having regard to the particular circumstances which we\u00a0 have adverted to before, we order that each\u00a0 party\u00a0 will bear and pay its own costs of these appeals. Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Case Law Minimum Wages Act Petitioner A M Allison Vs Respondent B L Sen (and connected appeal) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/12\/1956 \u00a0BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. DAS, S.K. \u00a0CITATION: 1957 AIR\u00a0 227\u00a0 1957 SCR\u00a0 359 ACT: Minimum basic wages-Basic work-load–Extra wages\u00a0 for\u00a0 work done in … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":""},"categories":[4928],"tags":[2890],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29889"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kopykitab.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}