Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 165 (BOM)

Central Tanzeem Committee v. Mohammad Ismail

2018-01-17

Z.A.HAQ

body2018
JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. (Oral) - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The respondent employee had filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking directions against the petitioner employer for paying the amount of Rs. 5,53,591/towards difference of wages, after calculating his wages according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 01/01/2001 till 27/12/2008, towards weekly day off wages, towards Annual and National festival leave wages and towards overtime wages. The claim of the employee was opposed by the employer on various grounds, one of the ground being that the employment of the employee was not a scheduled employment and was not covered by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has allowed the application filed by the employee. Being aggrieved by this order, the employer has filed this petition. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner employer has submitted that though specific ground was raised before the Labour Court that the employment of the employee was not a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, the Labour Court has not adverted to the objection raised by the employer and has allowed the application filed by the employee without considering that the employee cannot claim the difference of wages considering the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. Relying on the judgment given in the case of Lingegowd Detective and Security Chamber (P) Ltd. v. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2006 II CLR at page 392 , it is submitted that under the scheme of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 only those employees are entitled to claim the minimum wages who are engaged/employed for the employments specified in Part-I and Part-II of the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act,1948 and as the employee has failed to point out that his employment is covered by Part-I and Part-II of the Schedule of the Minimum Wages Act, the Labour Court could not have granted the claim as granted. 4. Be that as it may, after going through the impugned order, I find that the Labour Court has recorded that the employer had raised the objection about the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act, however, has not dealt with it. 4. Be that as it may, after going through the impugned order, I find that the Labour Court has recorded that the employer had raised the objection about the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act, however, has not dealt with it. The failure on the part of the Labour Court to deal with the objection about the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act has resulted in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court, and therefore the impugned order is vitiated. Hence, the following order is passed:- ORDER 1. The impugned order is set aside. 2. The matter is remanded to the First Labour Court, Nagpur for deciding the Application I.D.A. No. 73/2009 afresh. 3. The petitioner and the respondents shall appear before the First Labour Court, Nagpur on 12/03/2018 at 11:00 a.m. and abide by further orders/instructions in the matter. 4. As the matter is of 2009, the Labour Court shall dispose it within three months. 5. The parties are at liberty to produce the additional evidence on record if so advised. 6. The amount deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court be given to the petitioner along with the interest on it, if any. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.