Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 869 (JHR)

Green Woods v. Regional Labour Commissioner

2003-07-22

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2003
ORDER 1. The appellant is a partnership firm. It was engaged by the Indian Institute of Coal Management Ranchi. (for short HCM) for butification of its gardens of the campus, including maintenance of flowers, etc. For this purpose, the appellant had engaged 43 labours and the work was started from 1.4.1998. The appellant had duly obtained a licence under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 2. The HCM is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is promoted by the Coal India Limited (CIL), which is a Government Company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 3. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, inspected the premises of the institute and found that all the 43 agricultural labours, who were engaged for horticulture work in the gardens of the Campus were being paid less wages than the minimum rates of wages notified by the Central Government. According to the Labour Enforcement Officer the Central Government had fixed the minimum rates of wages by Notification dated 12.8.1992, which was applicable to the workers concerned and on calculation of their wages at the said rate, for the period from 1.4.1998 to 31.8.1999, they were, in all, paid Rs. 3,88,421.13 less towards the minimum wages, for which they were entitled. 4. The Labour Enforcement Officer accordingly filed a claim application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), which was registered as Claim Case No. 231 of 1999 before the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Dhanbad. 5. The Contractor M/s. Green Woods, the appellant herein appeared and filed its show cause (Annexure 4/1) stating inter alia, that they were always keen to pay the minimum wages to its employees and are ready to pay the same in terms of the notification, after due realization of the amount fell short of the minimum rate fixed by the Government. 6. While disposing of Claim Case No. 231 of 1999 aforesaid , the Regional Labour Commissioner in its judgment dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure 8) observed that the institute being an instrumentality of agency of the Central Government, the said Government is the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act for the HCM and their contractor. M/s. Green Woods. For the Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, the Central Government is the appropriate Government. 7. M/s. Green Woods. For the Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, the Central Government is the appropriate Government. 7. In this regard, the Regional Labour Commissioner applied the ratio of a decision of the Supreme Court in All Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 645 , and observed that as the HCM carry out deep and permissive control of the CIL, and thereby it carries out function under the control of the Government, it is very well covered under the expression other authorities and thus it is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was, therefore, held that the contractor M/s. Green Woods was paying less than the minimum wages to the workers as per the notification of the Central Government. Under the Act, the contractor is liable to pay the difference of wages as indicated above along with three times compensation i.e. in total amounting to Rs. 15,53,681.52 to the aforesaid 43 workers for the period from 1.4.1998 to 31.8.1999. 8. The appellant challenged the said decision in this Court, vide CWJC No. 1725 of 2000 (R), which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.12.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal. 9. It is true that HCM is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is promoted by the Coal India Limited, which is the holding Company and is wholly owned by the Government of India. It was constituted mainly to train the employees and officers of coal mining industries, which is substantially owned by Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, BCCL, ECL, CCL, etc. The constitution of the Board of trustees of HCM shows that despite a distinct entity with a society structure of its own, the HCM is an instrumentality and agency of Coal India Limited. The Regional Labour Commissioner, therefore, observed that Coal India, Limited is an instrumentality and agency of the Central Government and the Central Government is the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Minimum Wages Act for Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries it will be the appropriate Government for the HCM also. 10. The Regional Labour Commissioner, therefore, observed that Coal India, Limited is an instrumentality and agency of the Central Government and the Central Government is the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Minimum Wages Act for Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries it will be the appropriate Government for the HCM also. 10. On the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Air India case (supra), the Regional Labour Commissioner observed that Article 12 of the Constitution defines the term "State" and "other authorities" are included within the meaning of State. The expression "other authority", as held by the Apex Court is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry different governmental functions or the functions under the control of the Government. Thus the "other authority" within, the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution need not necessarily be an authority to perform government functions. Accordingly the HCM is the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 11. The HCM obtained registration certificate under the Contract Labour Act from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). Similarly M/s. Green Woods obtained licence from the Licensing Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The HCM is engaged in agricultural operations and it is their liability under law to ensure payment of minimum wages to the contract workers, otherwise those workers would be deprived of their fundamental rights and minimum wages. The Regional Labour Commissioner accordingly directed the contractor-appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,88,421.13 paise towards difference of wages along with three times compensation, amounting to Rs. 11,65,263.39 paise i.e. total amounting to Rs. 15,53,684.52 paise. 12. Section 20(1) of the Act provides appointment of an authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages of the employees employed or paid in that area. Under Section 20(2) a claim application can be made for a direction under Sub-section (3) provided such application is presented within six months from the date on which minimum wages became payable. 13. Under Section 20(2) a claim application can be made for a direction under Sub-section (3) provided such application is presented within six months from the date on which minimum wages became payable. 13. In the present case, assuming that the appellant-contractor had to pay the wages to those 43 workers not less than the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government and in that connection, on the basis of the report of the Labour Enforcement Officer (C) Claim Case under Section 20(2) of the Act was also filed, but there was no question for reference of any industrial dispute, for which a determination was required to be made whether Central or State Government was the appropriate authority, under Section 2(a)(1) of the 1947 Act. 14. It was a simple claim under Section 20 of the Act, but it was necessary to be decided herein as to the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Central Government or the State Government was payable by the contractor. Only for this limited purpose the status of the institute as well as the contractor was required to be examined in order to determine whether rates fixed by the Central or the State Government was applicable. 15. In this regard reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Water Front Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 , wherein the Air Indias case (supra) was over-ruled and it was held that the test to determine whether a particular industry is carried on under the authority of the Central Government or the State Government and whether the said industry is carried on by virtue of confirmant of power or permission of the Central Government falls within the meaning of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. 16. In the present case there is no dispute that the Institute under which the contractor was engaged is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and in view of the fact that it is neither the Government Company nor a subsidiary of the Government Company nor is run under the authority of the Central Government, rather is simply prompted by the Coal India Limited, which is a Government Company. However it has neither been created" under the permission or by virtue of confirmant of power of the Central Government. 17. However it has neither been created" under the permission or by virtue of confirmant of power of the Central Government. 17. In our assessment under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act for the purpose of the institute, the appropriate Government is the State Government. It is also not disputed that the appellant has already paid minimum wages at the rate fixed by the State Government and if it is found than less payment then the minimum wages fixed by the State Government was made during the period in question appropriate action may be taken against the appellant, under the provisions of the Act for payment of the amount of difference of wages in accordance with law. 18. However, since the appellant accepts that he is liable to pay the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government and is paying the same, the matter is not required to be remitted before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, to determine afresh, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) as to whether the State Government or the Central Government was the competent authority, as it would not serve any useful purpose. 19. It is open to the competent authority to take appropriate action against the appellant in case it is found that the minimum rate of wages paid to the aforesaid 43 workers during the period in question were less than the minimum rates of wages fixed by the State Government, at the relevant time. 20. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 21. In the result, this appeal is deposed of with the above observations/directions. No costs.