Bahadur Singh v. State of Bihar — 1979 DIGILAW 217 (PAT)

JUDGMENT K. B. N. Singh C. J. In all these five writ applications common questions of law arise, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The land owners are the petitioners in these writ applications and have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, directing them to make payment of arrears of wages to their employees, who are Respondent no.3 in each writ application. Copies of the impugned orders have been filed as Annexure-6 C. W. J. C. Nos. 1570, 1571 and 1573 of 1977, and as Annexure-5 in C. W. J. C. No. 1572 and 1574 of 1977. 3. Respondent No.3 in each of these writ applications filed an application before the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, under section 20 (2) of the Minimum wages Act, 1948 (Act XI of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act,) claiming that they had been paid wages at lesser rate than the rates of wages fixed under the Act, by the writ petitioners, under whom they had been working as contract labourer. They also claimed value of food, overtime wages for working on Sundays and annual wages, besides compensation. The applications were registered as Minimum Wages Cases Nos.80, 81, 91, 105 and 106 of 1976. Copies of the claim petitions filed by them have been filed and marked as Annexure 4 to these writ applications. 4. In three Minimum Wages cases, out of which Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 1570, 1571 and 1573 of 1977 arose, show cause petitions were filed on behalf of the writ petitioners before the Labour Court, the Authority under the Act, denying the liability etc. and copies of their show cause have been filed and marked as Annexures 5 to those writ applications. In the remaining two cases, namely, those out of which Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 1572 and 1574 of 1977 arose, no show cause was filed on behalf of the writ petitioners and those cases was decided ex parte. 5. To appreciate on the questions involved in these writ applications it will suffice to mention the facts involved in the first writ application, namely, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1570 of 1975 the relevant facts of the other writ cases being more or less similar in nature involving the same legal questions. 5. To appreciate on the questions involved in these writ applications it will suffice to mention the facts involved in the first writ application, namely, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1570 of 1975 the relevant facts of the other writ cases being more or less similar in nature involving the same legal questions. Arguments before us have also proceeded on that basis. 6. On the 24th September, 1976. Respondent no. 3 filed the claim petition before the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, under section 20 (2) of the Act, (Annexure...4) alleging that the writ petitioner appointed hi m for his agricultural work and has been taking work from him for the last over three years. He has been paid rupee one per day as wages, whereas the minimum rate of wages to which he was entitled under the Act, was Rs. 4.50 paise per day and fooding for one diem daily. It is also alleged therein that the writ petitioner took work from him on Sundays, but did not pay him overtime wages for working on Sundays. Respondent no. 3 also claimed that three maunds of paddy was payable to him as bonus every year. It is also alleged that the writ petitioner refused to pay the dues on demand which the claimant was entitled to get under the Act. Hence, a total claim or Rs. 2,127.00 was made, and ten times of that amount was claimed as, compensation. The other claim cases were also filed on the 23rd or the 24th or 27th September, 1976. 7. In the show cause filed be the writ petitioner (Annexure 5) before the Labour Court the petitioner challenged the maintainability or the claim petition under section 20 (2) or the Act. He also pleaded bar of limitation and denied the factum of Respondent no. 3 being employed as a labourer and asserted that the claim was bogus and filed because or old enmity with one Janak Singh, a money lender, whose labourer the said Respondent no. 3 was, to harass the petitioner. In the writ application, the petitioner has also stated that he bas about one acre of agricultural land and he carried on agricultural operations with the help of his family members, and some times, according to the exigencies or situation, he engages casual labourers, whom he pays at the minimum rate of wages, as fixed by the State Government. In the writ application, the petitioner has also stated that he bas about one acre of agricultural land and he carried on agricultural operations with the help of his family members, and some times, according to the exigencies or situation, he engages casual labourers, whom he pays at the minimum rate of wages, as fixed by the State Government. The petitioner has also stated that the State Government of Bihar, by its notification No. VI/W/3-1053/73-L & E-557, dated the 10th February, 1975 (Annexure 1) fixed different minimum rates or wages for various agricultural operations, in purported exercise of powers conferred on it under section 3 of the Act, and the rates of wages, with regard to Muzaffarpur with which we are concerned, are mentioned in Schedule II to Annexure 1. It is also stated that the State Government, by another Notitication being No. II/W-3-1045/L & E-2814 dated the 2nd July 1976 (Annexure 2) appointed every Sub-divisional Magistrate and every presiding officer or the Labour Courts in the State of Bihar to be the Authority under section 20 (1) or the Act, to decide claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of payment of remunerations for days of rest or for work done on such days or wages at the overtime rate to the employees. It is also stated that the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 22 F (1) of the Act, by Notification No. VI/W-3-1047/72-L & E-1138 dated the 3rd August, 1973 (Annexure 3) directed that the provisions of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act IV of 1936) shall apply to claims arising out of deductions from or delay in payment of wages or nonpayment of wages payable to the employees employed in employments mentioned in Part I and II of the Schedule appended to the Act. It is also stated in the writ application that Respondent no. 3 examined three witnesses before the Labour Court, but, neither Respondent no. 3, nor his other two witnesses, could show that he was an 'attached worker' of the petitioner, or that there was any contract of service between the petitioner and Respondent no. 3. nor could Respondent no. 3 prove that he worked for the petitioner for number of hours alleged by him. 3, nor his other two witnesses, could show that he was an 'attached worker' of the petitioner, or that there was any contract of service between the petitioner and Respondent no. 3. nor could Respondent no. 3 prove that he worked for the petitioner for number of hours alleged by him. It is also stated that the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court on the 25th January, 1977, and prayed for time for examining witnesses, but, on the adjourned date he could not appear on account of unavoidable reasons, and the Labour court proceeded exparte and allowed the claim of respondent no. 3 for a local sum of Rs. 869/- as per his order dated the 25tb April, 1977 (Annexure 6). It may be mentioned that the writ petitioner only cross examined the witnesses examined by the claimant and did not examine witnesses of its own. As a matter of fact, no witness was examined by the land owners in any or the case, except in the case out of which civil writ jurisdiction case no. 1571 of 1977 arises, and in two of the cases, out of which civil writ jurisdiction Cases nos. 1572 and 1574 of 1917, arise, even no show cause was filed. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed in each of the writ applications on behalf of Respondent no. 3. denying the assertions made in the writ applications. 9. The main contention raised by Mr. Ranen Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that in the instant cases there being no dispute as to rates of minimum wages, etc., the Authority under the Act, has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Such a claim was entertainable by the Authority under the payment of Wages Act, in which case the aggrieved party has a right of appeal under section 17 of the payment of wages Act, while no such right exists under the Act, and the order passed is final. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Town Municipal Council. Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Caurt, Hubli and others. 10. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel some of the relevant provisions of the Act, and its scheme have to be examined. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Town Municipal Council. Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Caurt, Hubli and others. 10. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel some of the relevant provisions of the Act, and its scheme have to be examined. The Act, provides for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments by the 'appropriate Government' as the name of the Act, suggests. Section 3 of the Act, authorises the 'appropriate Government' to fix minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in employments specified in part I or part II of the Schedule appended to the Act. Additions in the Schedule could be made by the appropriate Government in the manner prescribed under section 27 of the Act. Appropriate Government has been defined under section 2 (b) of the Act. There is no dispute that for the purpose of 'employment in agriculture' as mentioned in part II of the Schedule to the Act, the 'appropriate Government', under section 3 is the State Government, which has the power to fix the minimum rates of wages. As a matter of fact, by notification dated the 10th January 1975 (Annexure 1) in respect of employments in agriculture, the minimum rates of wages have been fixed by the State Government. There is also no dispute before us that the definition of 'wages' under section 2 (h) of the Act, is wide enough to cover the claims made by the employees (Respondent no. 3), which the subject matter of these writ applications. Section 12 enjoins on the employer to pay wages at the rates not less than the minimum rates fixed by notification for such class of employees without any deductions except as authorised, within such time and subject to the conditions as may be prescribed. Section 13 lays down that the State Government will fix the number of hours, which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or two specified intervals and provide for a paid fest day in every period of seven days. It also provides that in case of work on the rest day, the worker has to be paid at a rate not less than the one meant for overtime rate. It also provides that in case of work on the rest day, the worker has to be paid at a rate not less than the one meant for overtime rate. As to what will be the rate of over time wages is provided for in section 14. It is also not disputed that the rates under sections 13 and 14 have been duly fixed by the State Government by notifications issued from time to time. 11. Section 20 of the Act, provides for the appointment of an authority by the appropriate Government for the purpose of deciding all claims arising under sections 13 and 14 of the Act, relevant portion of which may usefully be reproduced:- "(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint any commissioner for workmen's compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as Judge of a civil court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to bear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates or wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the over time rate under section 14, to employees employed or paid in that area. "(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to Act, on his behalf or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3)". Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other amount) became payable. Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other amount) became payable. Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months, when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period." Sub-section (3) lays down elaborate procedure for hearing and disposal of the applications and for imposition of penalty (i) in case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to the employees exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess and, (ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees. Sub section (4) authorises imposition of penalty in case of malicious claims Sub-section (5) provides the machinery for recovery of the amount payable under section 20 and subsection (6) lays down that the decision of the Authority in the matter will be final. Under sub-section (7) the authority under section 20 is to have power of a civil court for the purposes of taking evidence, etc. 12. From the scheme of the Ace, it is manifest that where an appropriate Government has fixed the rates of wages etc., in respect of a scheduled employment, payment at those rates has to be made by the employer. In cases where payment of wages is made at a lower rate than the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Act, or in respect of payment of remunerations for work on the days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14, provision for its recovery is made by an application under section 20 (2) of the Act, in the manner laid down therein along with compensation. Even the common remedy, such as suit, in respect of such claims have been barred under section 24. There is thus no substance in the contention of Mr. Roy that the claim made by respondent no. Even the common remedy, such as suit, in respect of such claims have been barred under section 24. There is thus no substance in the contention of Mr. Roy that the claim made by respondent no. 3 In the instant cases before the Labour court is not maintainable under section 20 (2) of the Act, and the remedy of the Respondent was by way of an application under section 15 of the payment of wages act, when the rates have been filled under the Minimum wages Act, by the appropriate Government. 13. Section 15 of the payment of Wages Act, provides for adjudication and realisation of all claims arising out of 'deduction' and delay in payment of the wages. 'The expression' deduction, has not been defined and it may relate to the entire wages, as held in the case of the Upper India Coupar Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. J. O. Mathur, on which Mr. Roy has relied. The Minimum Wages Act, however, is concerned with fixing rates of wages and also provides for the machinery to enforce pay merit at those rates, where the dispute raised is that the wages have been paid at rates less than those fixed under the said Act. It is, therefore, manifest that the jurisdiction of the Authority under section 20 (2) of the Act, in respect of cases coming within the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, is not ousted in view of Section 15 of the payment of wages Act, which relates to a different situation. Section 7 to 13 of the Payment of Wages Act, lay down as to what are permissible deductions. Section 3 lays down that every employer shall be responsible for payment of all wages to the employees under the payment of Wages Act, and under section 4, the Wage period has to be find, Section 6 lays down that the wages have to be paid in current coins or currency notes. Rule 21 (2) of the Minimum Wages Rules also refers to these as permissible deductions from the wages of the persons employed in a scheduled employment. It is in respect of such deductions and delay in payment or non payment of wages that the provisions of Sections 15, 16 and 17, etc. Rule 21 (2) of the Minimum Wages Rules also refers to these as permissible deductions from the wages of the persons employed in a scheduled employment. It is in respect of such deductions and delay in payment or non payment of wages that the provisions of Sections 15, 16 and 17, etc. of the Payment or Wages Act, with adaptations, have been made applicable to the Minimum Wages Act, by a notification dated the 3rd August, 1973, issued by the Government of Bihar, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 22F "of the Minimum Wages Act, which authorises the Government to issue such applications in relation to claims arising out of deductions from or delay in payment or nonpayment of wages. The provisions of section 22 of the Act, may usefully be re-produced:- "22F (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the appropriate Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), all or any of the provisions of the said Act, shall, with such modifications, if any, as may be specified in the notifications, apply to wages payable to employees in such scheduled employments as may be specified in the notification. (2) Whore all or any of the provisions of the said Act, arc applied to wages payable to employees in any scheduled employment under sub-section (1), the Inspector appointed under this Act, shall be deemed to be the Inspector for the purpose of enforcement of the provisions so applied within the local limits of his jurisdiction". It is, thus, manifest that section is of the Payment of Wages Act, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Authority under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. In respect of cases or claims coming within the purview of that Act. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Town Municipal Council, Athani, relied upon by Mr. Roy to which I shall presently refer, supports the view I have taken that the claim of Respondent no. 3 for payment of wages at rates lower than the minimum rates of wages fixed, etc., was maintainable under section 20 (2) of the act. 14. Mr. Roy has placed strong reliance on certain observations made in paragraph no. Roy to which I shall presently refer, supports the view I have taken that the claim of Respondent no. 3 for payment of wages at rates lower than the minimum rates of wages fixed, etc., was maintainable under section 20 (2) of the act. 14. Mr. Roy has placed strong reliance on certain observations made in paragraph no. 6 of the Judgment in the above mentioned Supreme Court decision in support of his submission, that, when there was no dispute as regards the rates, the application under the Minimum Wages Act, was not maintainable. Paragraph no. 6 of the aforesaid decision is a long paragraph, in which Bhargava, J. after considering the various provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, has observed as follows:- "We have mentioned these provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, because the language used at all stages, in that Act, leads to the clear inference that the Act, is primarily concerned with fixing of rates, rates of minimum wages, over time rates, rate for payment for work on a day of rest--and is not really intended to be an Act, for enforcement of payment of wages for which provisions is made in other laws, such as the Payment of Wages Act, (No.4 of 1936), and the Industrial Disputes Act, (No. 14 of 1947). In section 20 (1) of the Minimum wage Act, also, provisions is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (e) of sub section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the over time rate under section 14. This language used in section 20 (1) shows that the authority appointed under the provisions of law is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relates to rates of wages, rates for payment of work done on days of rest and overtime rates. If there be no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employees, section 20 (1) would not be attracted. If there be no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employees, section 20 (1) would not be attracted. The purpose of section 20 (1) seems to be to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, are complied with by the employer in making payments and, if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under section 20 (1). "In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages, overtime or work on off-days is due to workmen or not the appropriate is provided in the Payment of Wages Act. The observations relied upon by Mr. Roy have been underlined by me. The decision does not lay down, as urged by Mr. Roy that only where there is a dispute as to what is the correct rate payable under the Act, or what should have been the correct rate fixed by the State Government that the jurisdiction of the Authority under section 20 (1) of the Act, is attracted. In that case the very purpose for which section 20 has been enacted would be defeated, inasmuch as the rate fixed by the State Government, whether right or wrong, could not be made justiciable before the Authority constituted under the Act, wherein no power of such review has been vested, and such aft elaborate provision, as contained in section 20 of the Act, would not have been made only for the purpose of finding out as to what is the proper minimum rate of wages to be fixed by the State Government particularly, then the scheme of the Act, does not envisage any enquiry under section 20 before fixation of the rates by an appropriate Government by a notification. A reference to what has been stated earlier and subsequent to the observations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners also shows that no such narrow interpretation has been put on section 20 (1) of the Act, in the judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. A reference to what has been stated earlier and subsequent to the observations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners also shows that no such narrow interpretation has been put on section 20 (1) of the Act, in the judgment of the Supreme Court. 15. The underlined observations have not to be read in isolation of what has been said in the lines preceding and the lines following with regard to the nature of the claims which could be entertained under Section 20 of the Act, as also of the background of the controversies that were raised before the Supreme Court in that particular case by Mr. B. Sen. The Supreme Court itself has emphasised that the Minimum Wages Act, provides for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rate of wages of remuneration for working on the rest days under clauses (b) and (c) of Sub section (1) or section 13, or of wages at the overtime rates under section 14 fixed under the Act. It also lays down that the purpose behind section 20 (1) of the Act, is to ensure that the prescribed rates of wages under the Act, are complied by the employers in making payment and, if any attempt has been made to make payment at a lower rate, the workman has a right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under section 20 (1) of the Act, the main purpose behind the Act, being to fix minimum rates and provide machinery for enforcing payments at the rates fixed. It will be relevant in this connection to refer to the judgment of the Mysore High Court in the case of the Town Municipal Council Athani Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hubli, and others, out of which the aforesaid Supreme Court case arose. 16. From the judgment of the Mysore High Court it appears that four applications under section 330 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, were filed by the employees of the Town Municipal Council, Athani, before the Labour Court. In three of the four applications, computation of their claims for over time work and compensation for the work done on rest day was involved. The fourth case was in respect of cost of uniforms and washing charges. In three of the four applications, computation of their claims for over time work and compensation for the work done on rest day was involved. The fourth case was in respect of cost of uniforms and washing charges. The Labour Court allowed all the claims of the employees Orders of the Labour Court in those cases were challenged by the Municipality by four different writ applications in the Mysore High Court and the main controversy was as to whether in view of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, application under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was maintainable. The High Court held that there was nothing in section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to exclude from consideration the claims which could be enforceable under section 20(2) of the Act, Against that decision, the Municipal Council moved the Supreme Court. The same question was agitated before the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned that it was conceded by the parties that this question would not arise in one of the cases, where toe claim was with regard to cost of uniform and washing charges, which are items not governed by the Act, at all. The question of law, therefore, remained confined to the remaining three appeals before the Supreme court, as to whether the claim of the workmen under section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was entertainable by the Labour court, if an application for the same relief could be entertainable by the Labour Court under section 20 (1) of the Act. It was in this context that the Supreme Court observed that the Minimum Wages Act, is primarily concerned with fixation of rates of minimum wages, rates for payment for work done on days of rest and over time rates and under section 20 (2) of the Act, provision is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of wages at rates lower than the rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. While considering this question, the Supreme court held that if there was no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employees, section 20 (1) would not be attracted, such as in cases, where there is no dispute as to rates of wages and the only question is whether a particular payment is at the rate agreed in respect of payment of wages, etc. The Supreme Court, after examining the pleadings of the parties, found that there was no dispute as to rates between the parties. The relevant portion or the judgment may be quoted : "It does appear that, in one case, there was a pleading on behalf of the appellant that no rates at all had been prescribed by the Mysore Government. That pleading did not mean that it became a dispute as to the rates at which the payments were to be made by the appellant. The only question that arose was whether there were any rates at all fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, for overtime and for payment for work done on days of rest. Such a question does not relate to a dispute as to the rates enforceable between the parties, so that the remedy under section 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, could not have been sought by the applicants in any of these applications. No question can, therefore, arise of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain these applications under section 33 C (2) of the Act, being barred because of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act." In all the five writ applications with which we arc concerned, the employees, in paragraph No. 3 of their applications under section 20 (2) of the Act, have specifically asserted that they were being paid at rates lesser than those prescribed under the Act, and the land owners have refused to pay at those rates. The facts or the instant easel, therefore, are completely different from those in the case of Athani Municipal council (supra). The applications of all the employees (Respondent no. 3 in the writ applications) were, therefore, maintainable under section 20 (1) of the Act, and the observations relied upon by Mr. Roy in the aforesaid Supreme Court case are not applicable to the facts of the instant cases. The Single Judge decision in the case of M. L. Gupta, Oity Magistrate, Lucknow and others relied upon by Mr. Roy, is also distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as the admitted position in that case was that there was no dispute arising out of payment of low wages than the minimum rate of wages. 17. The next contention of Mr. The Single Judge decision in the case of M. L. Gupta, Oity Magistrate, Lucknow and others relied upon by Mr. Roy, is also distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as the admitted position in that case was that there was no dispute arising out of payment of low wages than the minimum rate of wages. 17. The next contention of Mr. Roy is that no evidence before the Authority having been led that the claimants were 'attached workers' no annual payment of paddy of its equivalent could be ordered to be made to the employees by the employers. Mr. Roy has also submitted that the claim on all the cases was for annual payment in respect of the fear 1915 and the claim petitions were filed in September, 1976, therefore, beyond six months, and there being no application to condone the delay the claim for annual payment of paddy was barred by limitation. 18. The importance of 'attached worker' lies in the fact that notification no. S. O. 337 dated the 10th February 1975/15th March, 1975 (Annexure I) issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3, read with sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, entitles an 'attached worker' to get one and a half quintals of paddy every year in addition to the minimum wages at the rates specified in that notification, as provided in Note (B) to the second schedule to the aforesaid Notification. The expression 'attached worker' has been defined in Explanation (b) to the notes attached to the second schedule to the said notification in the following terms:- "(b) The expression 'attached worker' means a worker who is under a contract written or verbal with his employer, while the expression casual worker' means a worker other than an attached worker", 19. On a reference to the claim application filed by respondent no. 3 (in CWJC No.1570 of 1977) dated the 24th September 1976 (Annexure 4) it is apparent that the claim of the employee (respondent no. 3) was that the petitioner had appointed him for his cultivation work and he has been working for the last 5 years. Respondent no. 3 has also deposed to the same effect as A. W. 3 His story has been corroborated by other two witnesses, as A. W. 1 and A. W. 2 and has been accepted by the Authority. 3) was that the petitioner had appointed him for his cultivation work and he has been working for the last 5 years. Respondent no. 3 has also deposed to the same effect as A. W. 3 His story has been corroborated by other two witnesses, as A. W. 1 and A. W. 2 and has been accepted by the Authority. In only one case, out of the five cases, i.e., the case out of which civil writ jurisdiction case no 1571 of 1977 arises, the land owner examined witnesses. The Labour Court, after considering the question, bas come to a finding that respondent no. 3 was an 'attached worker' of the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 1571 of 1977. In other two cases namely, out of which C. W. J. C. Nos. 1570 and 1573 arises, no evidence was led on behalf of the land owners and the land owners only cross-examined the witnesses. The Labour Court, after considering the entire evidence led on behalf of the employees has come to a finding that the employees in both the cases were 'attached workers. In the remaining two cases out of which C. W. J. C. Nos. 1572 and 1574 arise even no show cause was filed on behalf of the land owners and the proceeding was ex-parte, and the Labour Court accepted the evidence led on behalf of the employees. After going through the Judgments of the Labour court, I am fully satisfied that the Labour Court has fully considered the evidence in all its aspects and has rightly come to the correct conclusion, based on evidence, that the concerned workers were attached workers. Thus there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Roy that the finding of the Labour Courts is vitiated, as there is no evidence to support the finding of the Labour Court on the point. But there is substance in the submission of Mr. Roy that the claim for annual payment of paddy or its equivalent for the year 1975 was barred by limitation. The claim for paddy for the year 1975 could have been made within six months of the expiry of the year 1975. The application was filed in September, 1976, obviously six months of the close of the year 1975. A sum of Rs. The claim for paddy for the year 1975 could have been made within six months of the expiry of the year 1975. The application was filed in September, 1976, obviously six months of the close of the year 1975. A sum of Rs. 120/- has been claimed in this regard in respect of the year 1975 in all the claim cases. It has been allowed in four cases and not in one, out of which civil writ jurisdiction case no. 1571 of 1977 arises. There was no application for condoning the delay, and therefore, this claim is barred by limitation. It may be mentioned that the labour court, while considering the claims in respect of wages etc. has taken note of the fact that there was no application for condoning the delay, and therefore, has allowed the claims in each of the other applications for period only six months prior to the filing of the application, but, seems to have overlooked that the claim in respect of annual payment of paddy was also barred by limitation. The order in the case out of which C. W. J. C. No. 1571 of 1977 arises, does not state anything about the claim for paddy. 20. Mr. Roy has next urged that a dispute regarding relationship of master and servant is out side the jurisdiction of the Minimum wages Act, in as much as where the relationship was disputed by the landowner, the matter could be decided under the Industrial Disputes Act, and not under the Minimum Wages Act. As already discussed, the scheme of the Act, is to enforce the rates of wages fixed under the Act, and the Authority under the Act, has been empowered to entertain an application for claim where wages have been paid to the employees at rate less than the rates fixed, and for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The authority under the Act, therefore, has jurisdiction to decide the question of relation ship or employer and employee for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the Act. That in such situation, it has got jurisdiction to go into the question of relationship of employer and employee is beyond dispute have already held that the Authority under the Act, has to decide whether the worker is a 'casual worrier' or an 'attached worker'. That in such situation, it has got jurisdiction to go into the question of relationship of employer and employee is beyond dispute have already held that the Authority under the Act, has to decide whether the worker is a 'casual worrier' or an 'attached worker'. Any other construction will frustrate the very purpose of the Act, in as much as by even a false denial of the relationship of employer and employee by an unscrupulous employer, the very object of the Act, will be frustrated. It is tile settled principle of construction of such social and benevolent pieces of legislations, that they should be so construed as to effectuate the purpose which they have been enacted rather than put a consideration which will frustrate the very object of such legislations. This finds support from a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Vishwanath Thakuram Vs. The General Manager—Railway and others, in relation to Payment of Wages Act, under which Act, also the question of relationship of employer and employee had to be determined for the purpose of deciding the claim, wherein the decision in the case of C. S. Lal Vs. Sheikh Badshah, was referred to and Chagla, C. J., quoted with approval the following observations from the case of C. S. Lal:- "Again it is well established that it is open to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, in order to decide that sums are payable as wages, to determine whether a person has been employed or not, because the question of contract of employment can only arise if there was at the relevant time a subsisting contract of employment." Thus, there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Roy that the court cannot decide the relationship of employer and employee under the Act. 21. An additional point has been urged by Mr. Roy. in Civil Writ Jurisdiction case No. 1571 of 1977, that the workman has claimed value of food at the rate of rupee one per day, and he has been allowed only Rs. 81/- in this regard. Therefore, the workman should have been held to be entitled to wages for 81 days only and not for the period from the 23rd March, 1976, to the 31st August 1976, that is to say, for a period of 162 days. On behalf of respondent no. 81/- in this regard. Therefore, the workman should have been held to be entitled to wages for 81 days only and not for the period from the 23rd March, 1976, to the 31st August 1976, that is to say, for a period of 162 days. On behalf of respondent no. 3 it is submitted that awarding of Rs. 81/- for one meal is a mistake for Rs. 162/- or Rs. 161/- as awarded in the other four cases and no inference from that could be drawn against the employee that he worked only for 81 days, when the Labour Court has specifically awarded wages for less payment for a period of 162 days, amounting to Rs. 486/- only. I think, there is substance in this contention of the learned counsel, and at any rate, a writ court, on the basis of mistake committed with regard to one item of the claim, will not be justified in interfering with orders in respect of other items of claims, based on findings of fact recorded by the l.abour court that the workman is entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs. 3.50 paise per day for 162 days, i.e., for the period from the 23rd March, 1916, to the 31st August, 1976, during which period he had been paid at the rate of rupee one only per day. 22. No other point has been urged. The details of the facts of the other cases need not be mentioned as they are modified or less similar to the one mentioned above. 24. In the result, Civil writ Jurisdiction case No. 1571 of 1977 is dismissed. In the remaining four writ applications, the orders of the Labour Court are modified to the extent that the amount of Rs. 120/- awarded to the employees as equivalent to the annual payment of paddy is quashed and Civil writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 1570, 1572, 1573 and 1574 of 1971 are allowed to this extent only. In the circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs. Prem Shanker Sahay, J. I agree. CWJC 1571 dismissed. Order modified in the rest.