Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1139 (MP)

K. J. S. Cement Ltd. v. Rajiv Sharma

2017-11-08

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 29.08.2017 by which the learned authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Labour Court, Satna has rejected the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the claim submitted by the respondents. 3. The applicant is running a Cement Plant in the District Satna. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the employees of M/s Kamal Sponge & Steel Ltd, Satna. For certain period, they came to the establishment of the applicant to work as a Labour/Employee. The respondent approached the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act under Section 20 to claim the minimum wages with ten time penalty and interest @ 12%. According to the respondents, they were appointed as Assistant Fitters by M/s Kamal Sponge & Steel Ltd in the year 2002. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.10.2014, their services were transferred to the present applicant. 4. The applicant has paid them wages @ Rs.5,450/-per month which is less than minimum wages i.e. Rs.10,035/- whereas, the State Government has prescribed the wages for high skilled labour Rs.10,035/-per month from 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 and thereafter from 01.04.2015. 5. After notice, the present applicant filed a preliminary objection that they are employees of M/s Kamal Sponge & Steel Ltd. and getting salary from the said business concern and they are not the employee of K.G.S Cement, therefore, the application is not maintainable against them. The provision of Minimum Wages Act does not apply as the same comes under the category of control industries under the provisions of Industries Dispute Act, 1947. The applicant has been placed in the category of controlled industries under Section 2 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951. The learned authority, vide order dated 29.08.2017 has turned down the objection and fixed the case for reply. 6. The petitioner filed the writ petition against the said order which was registered as M.P.No.113/2017. Vide order dated 13.10.2017, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the impugned order dated 29.08.2017. Hence, the present revision before this Court. 7. I have heard Shri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 8. 6. The petitioner filed the writ petition against the said order which was registered as M.P.No.113/2017. Vide order dated 13.10.2017, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the impugned order dated 29.08.2017. Hence, the present revision before this Court. 7. I have heard Shri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Shri Sidharth Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the definition of the Schedule Employment under Section 2(g), according to which, the employment specified in the schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment. Shri Singh submits that the cement industry is not in the schedule appended to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, therefore, the provisions of Act do not apply to the applicant/company, hence, the proceedings are not maintainable under the Act before the Labour Court. 9. According to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, initially they were employee of M/s Kamal Sponge & Steel Ltd. and thereafter, they were transferred to the petitioner's industry. The contention of the applicant is that the respondents are not their employees and are employees of M/s Kamal Sponge & Steel Ltd. The nature of activities of the said company has not been disclosed by the petitioner. Whether the said company is in the schedule appended to the Act is a disputed question of fact. Prima-facie, the petitioner comes under the category of “employer” as defined in Section 2(e) it means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person. If the non applicants are appointed through M/s Kamal Sponge & Steel Ltd, in the establishment of the petitioner, then they comes under the category of employer. The Section 20 of the Act provides appointment of authority to hear and decide all claims arising out of payment of less then minimum wages. Under Sub Section 3 of Section 20, if application is entertained, the authority shall hear and decide it after giving opportunity to the employer. As per sub Section 4 if the authority is satisfied that the application was either malicious or vexatious, it may impose penalty to be paid to the employer by a person presenting the application, therefore, if any claim is made under Section 20, it is required to be decided. 10. As per sub Section 4 if the authority is satisfied that the application was either malicious or vexatious, it may impose penalty to be paid to the employer by a person presenting the application, therefore, if any claim is made under Section 20, it is required to be decided. 10. There is no such provision of dismissal of the claim on preliminary objection, therefore, learned authority has not committed any error of law while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 11. Present revision is hereby dismissed.