JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Mr. A. Bhattacharya and Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1559 of 2017 [Bijoy Biswas vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1560 of 2017 [Prabir Baishya and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.1561 of 2017 [Gouranga Paul and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1562 of 2017 [Anath Shil and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.1700 of 2017 [Hiranmoy Dey and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.17 of 2018 [Uttam Debbarma and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.1244 of 2017 [Abdul Razzak and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] are combined for disposal by a common judgment as the common questions of law wade through all the writ petitions. 3. The basic question that has been raised in all these writ petitions is that whether the respondents can defy the notification No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/4640-56 dated 22.03.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1559 of 2017] and the notification No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/9176- 83 dated 23.06.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1244 of 2017 issued by the appropriate government as defined under Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 defines ‘appropriate government’ as follows: “(i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the [Central Government or a railway administration], or in relation to a mine, oil-field or major port, or any corporation established by [a Central Act], the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the [State Government].” 4. There is no dispute that the appropriate government is authorized to fix the minimum wage under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There is no dispute that the appropriate government is authorized to fix the minimum wage under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section-3 of the said act cast duty on the appropriate government to fix the minimum rate of wage payable to the employees, employed in an employment specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule and in an employment of the said Act by notification under section 27 it has been provided that the appropriate Government may, in respect of employees employed in an employment specified in Part II of the Schedule, instead of fixing minimum rates of wages under this clause for the whole State, fix such rates for a part of the State or for any specified class or classes of such employment in the whole State or part thereof. The appropriate government can also review at such intervals, as it may think fit, such intervals not exceeding five years, the minimum rates of wages so fixed and revise the minimum rates, if necessary provided that where for any reason the appropriate Government has not reviewed the minimum rates of wages fixed by it in respect of any scheduled employment within any interval of five years, nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to prevent it from reviewing them, if necessary, and until they are so revised the minimum rates in force immediately before the expiry of the said period of five years shall continue in force. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment, but if any time, the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such inquiry, as it may make or cause to be made in this behalf, that the number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages, payable to employees in such employment as soon as may be after such finding. It has been further provided under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 that the appropriate Government may fix- (a) a minimum rate of wages for time work for a minimum time rate (b) a minimum rate of wages for piece work for a minimum piece rate (c) a minimum rate of remuneration to apply in the case of employees employed on piece work for the purpose of securing to such employees a minimum rate of wages on a time work basis for a guarantee time rate and (d) a minimum rate or a time rate or a piece rate to apply in substitution for the minimum rate which would otherwise be applicable, in respect of overtime work done by employees as overtime rate. 5. Section 2A of the said Act provides the procedure for adjudication of dispute. Presently, we are not concerned with that provision and as such this court is refrained from elaborately referring to that part of the provision. It is apparent on the said sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act that the appropriate Government has been given the adequate power to determine the minimum wage and also to determine whether the appropriate Government would fix the minimum rate of wages for time work or the minimum piece rate. It is all at the discretion of the appropriate Government in the course of disposing any representation, whether the minimum wages be made per diem or for a category of work a minimum time rate or a minimum piece rate. It is apparent on a simple reading of the said provision that the appropriate Government has the authority to discontinue or not to adopt the wages for time rate or minimum time rate or the appropriate Government may discontinue that work system for purpose of determining the minimum wage for the categories of the employees. 6. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Mr. A. Bhattacharya and Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have fairly submitted that the relevant notifications are not available in all the writ petitions, but all the relevant notifications are available in this batch of writ petitions, but slattered in the different writ petitions. Since the matters are being heard by this court as a batch, the reference will be made to those public notifications as published in the gazette. Since the matters are being heard by this court as a batch, the reference will be made to those public notifications as published in the gazette. It has not been disputed that by the notification dated 23.05.2014, as reproduced in later part, the appropriate Government had allowed the minimum time rate or minimum piece rate but by virtue of the said notification. Thus, the earlier system of time rate and piece rate has been discontinued. Later on, on 22.03.2017, the said policy has been restated with variation in the minimum wage rate and the VDA (Variable Dearness Allowance). Thus, the earlier system of time rate and piece rate has been discontinued. Later on, on 22.03.2017, the said policy has been restated with variation in the minimum wage rate and the VDA (Variable Dearness Allowance). For purpose of reference, the entire text of the notification dated 22.03.2017 is extracted hereunder : GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA LABOUR DEPARTMENT No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/4640-56 Agartala, the 22nd March, 2017 NOTIFICATION In continuation of this Department’s No.F.21(43)- LAV/ENF/MW/Loading/99/11544-58 dated 18th October, 2016 and in furtherance of the aforesaid Notification, the State Government hereby revises the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) on the basis of 6-monthly average Consumer Price Index Numbers for the period of six months commencing from 01-07-2016 and ending on 31-12- 2016 over the previous 6-monthly average viz 4448 over 4193 average Consumer Price Index for different categories of workers engaged in the employment of “Loading and Un-loading” in Tripura as under and directs that the Variable Dearness Allowance shall be payable with effect from 01-04-2017 by the employers to the workers/employees employed in the aforesaid employment as per the following schedule: SCHEDULE Average increase of CPI Category of workers Minimum basic wages (Daily/Monthly) Previous VDA Present VDA Total minimum rates of wages (3+4) (Daily/Monthly) 1 2 3 4 5 6 191.83 (A) Skilled worker (working more that 1 year & over 30 years of age) Rs.350/- x (26+4) days = Rs.10,500/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Rs.53.37 Rs.16.01 Rs.419.00.0 x (26+4) days = Rs.12.570/- (26 working days = 4 days) (B) Semiskilled (Working more than 6 months but less than 1 year and over 30 years of age) Rs.325/ x (26+ 4) days = Rs.9,750/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Rs.49.53 14.87 Rs.389.00 x (26+4) days = Rs.11,670/- (26 working days + 4 days) leave (C) Un-skilled (Working less than 6 months and age below 35 years) Rs.300/- x (26 + 4) days = Rs.9,000/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Rs.45.72 Rs.13.73 Rs.359.00 x (26+4) days = Rs.10,770/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) (D) Managerial/ Clerical (Nonworking categories/ clerical) Rs.300/- x (26+4) days = Rs.9,000/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Rs.45.72 Rs.13.73 Rs.359.00 x (26+4) days = Rs.10,770/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) (S.K. Das) Addl. Secretary to the Government of Tripura 7. At the cost of repetition the policy as decided by the appropriate government is restated by this court: 1. Secretary to the Government of Tripura 7. At the cost of repetition the policy as decided by the appropriate government is restated by this court: 1. The maximum working period will be 8 hours inclusive of 30 minutes break for Lunch/Dinner/Tiffin/etc. 2. Any extra work time be compensated with overtime Charge. A worker still not be engaged more that consecutive 6 days. 3. A break for 1(one) day will be treated ‘as on duty’ and the rate of non-working day will be same as on working day. 4. A worker employed by any agency (Merchant/Sardar/Contractor) normally will be working till the age of 65 years and cannot be terminated without proper reasons and intimation. 5. A register of all Labours employed be maintained by the employer and would be subjected for verification by competent authority. 6. The maximum load will not exceed 50 kg at any point of time. 7. Head load distance will not exceed 20 meters, which may extend to 50 meters with help/aid of any mechanized tool as trolley/wheel carts etc. 8. Piece rate system be discontinued and a monthly/daily rate is to be fixed taking skill of work in consideration. [Emphasis added] 8. Therefore, it is un-ambiguously made that the piece rate system is discontinued. The minimum time rate only be applicable for purpose of overtime, not for any other purpose. It has been clearly stated in the said notification that the minimum wages as has been determined by the notification dated 22.03.2017 shall be effected from 01.04.2017 with all its rigours including the new system of engagement, introduced by the state. Thereafter, in a further exercise the appropriate Government by the notification dated 23.06.2017, the rates have been modified [Annexure-5 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1559 of 2017 and Annesure-4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1244 of 2017]. Again the minimum wage was modified by the notification dated 24.10.2017 which has come effect with effect from 01.10.2017. But the policy as adopted by the appropriate Government by abolishing the piece rate system has not been implemented so far and the petitioners herein are being loading and unloading workers/employees working in the different warehouses and the go-downs run by the State Government, but they are still forced to accept the piece rate on the basis of load they carried in a day, whenever they are engaged for purpose of loading and unloading. The state government has been continuing the old regressive system. 9. Being aggrieved by the continuance of the piece rate system most arbitrarily, the petitioners have approached this court and urged for directing the respondents to comply and implement those notifications abolishing the piece rate system and fixing the minimum wages for the loading and unloading worker/employees. 10. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel in order to buttress his analogy has contended that this is an action contrary to the tenet of Article-23 of the constitution of India. It can be state forth right that the respondents are practicing the forced labour in contravention of Article-23 of the constitution of India. Having referred to Sanjit Roy vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1983) 1 SCC 525 , Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that every person who provides labour or service to another is entitled at least to the minimum wage as declared and if anything less than the minimum wage is paid, he can complain for violation of his fundamental right under Article 23 and ask the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that Article 23 cannot be infringed. The relevant passages as referred by Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners from Sanjit Roy (supra) is extracted hereunder : “This Court had occasion to consider the true meaning and effect of Article 23 in a judgment given on 18th September 1982 in writ petition No. 8143 of 1981- Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1) The Court pointed out that the constitution makers, when they set out to frame the Constitution, found that the practice of 'forced labour' constituted an ugly and shameful feature of our national life which cried for urgent attention and with a view to obliterating and wiping out of existence this revolting practice which was a relic of a feudal exploitative society totally incompatible with new egalitarian socio-economic order which "We the people of India" were determined to build, they enacted Article 23 in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. This Article, said the Court, is intended to eradicate the pernicious practice of 'forced labour' and to wipe it out altogether from the national scene and it is therefore not limited in its application against the State but it is also enforceable against any other person indulging in such practice. This Article, said the Court, is intended to eradicate the pernicious practice of 'forced labour' and to wipe it out altogether from the national scene and it is therefore not limited in its application against the State but it is also enforceable against any other person indulging in such practice. It is designed to protect the individual not only against the state but also against other private citizens. The Court observed that the expression "other similar forms of forced labour" in Article 23 is of the widest amplitude and on its, true interpretation it covers every possible form of forced labour begar or otherwise and it makes no difference whether the person forced to give his labour or service to another is remunerated or not. Even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by this Article if it is forced labour, that is, labour supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion and the same would be the position even if forced labour supplied by a person has its origin in a contract of service. The Court then considered whether there would be any breach of Article 23 when a person provides labour or service to the State or to any other person and is paid less than the minimum wage for it and observed: "It is obvious that ordinarily no one would willingly supply labour or service to another for less than the minimum wage, when he knows that under the law he is entitled to get minimum for the labour or service provided by him. It may therefore be legitimately presumed that when a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, he is acting under the force of some compulsion which drives him to work though he is paid less than what he is entitled under the law to receive. What Article 23 prohibits is 'forced labour' that is labour or service which a person is forced to provide and 'force' which would make such labour or service 'forced labour' may arise in several ways. What Article 23 prohibits is 'forced labour' that is labour or service which a person is forced to provide and 'force' which would make such labour or service 'forced labour' may arise in several ways. It may be physical force which may compel a person to provide labour or service to another or it may be forced exerted through a legal provision such as a provision for imprisonment or fine in case the employee fails to provide labour or service or it may even be compulsion arising from hunger and poverty, want and destitution. Any factor which deprives a person of a choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as 'force' and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such 'force', it would be 'forced labour'. Where a person is suffering from hunger or starvation, when he has no resources at all to fight disease or to feed his wife and children or even to hide their nakedness where utter grinding poverty has broken his back and reduced him to a state of helplessness and despair and where no other employment is available to alleviate the rigour of his poverty, he would have no choice but to accept any work that comes his way, even if the remuneration offered to him is less than the minimum wage. He would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour or service provided by him would be clearly 'forced labour'. There is no reason why the word 'forced' should be read in a narrow and restricted manner so as to be confined only to physical or legal 'force' particularly when the national charter, its fundamental document has promised to build a new socialist republic where there will be socioeconomic justice for all and everyone shall have the right to work, to education and to adequate means of livelihood. The constitution makers have given us one of the most remarkable documents in history for ushering in a new socio-economic order and the Constitution which they have forged for us has a social purpose and an economic mission and therefore every word or phrase in the constitution must be interpreted in a manner which would advance the socio-economic objective of the Constitution. It is not un often that in a capitalist society economic circumstances exert much greater pressure on an individual in driving him to a particular course of action than physical compulsion or force of legislative provision. The word 'force' must therefore be construed to include not only physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic circumstances which leaves no choice of alternatives to a person in want and compels him to provide labour or service even though the remuneration received for it is less than the minimum wage. Of course, if a person provides labour or service to another against receipt of the minimum wage, it would not be possible to say that the labour or service provided by him is 'forced labour' because he gets what he is entitled under law to receive. No inference can reasonably be drawn in such a case that he is forced to provide labour or service for the simple reason that he would be providing labour or service against receipt of what is lawfully payable to him just like any other person who is not under the force of any compulsion. No inference can reasonably be drawn in such a case that he is forced to provide labour or service for the simple reason that he would be providing labour or service against receipt of what is lawfully payable to him just like any other person who is not under the force of any compulsion. We are therefore of the view that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words 'forced labour' under Article 23, Such a person would be entitled to come to the court for enforcement of his fundamental right under Article 23 by asking the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the labour or service provided by him ceases to be 'forced labour' and the breach of Article 23 is remedied." I must, therefore hold consistently with this decision that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the meaning of the words 'forced labour' and attracts the condemnation of Article 23. Every person who provides labour or service to another is entitled at the least to the minimum wage and if anything less than the minimum wage is paid to him he can complain of violation of his fundamental right under Article 23 and ask the court to direct payment of the minimum wage to him so that the breach of Article 23 may be abated. If this be the correct position in law, it is difficult to see how the constitutional validity of the Exemption Act in so far as it excludes the applicability of the Minimum wages Act 1948 to the workmen employed in famine relief works can be sustained. Article 23, as pointed out above, mandates that no person shall be required or permitted to provide labour or service to another on payment of anything less than the minimum wage and if the Exemption Act, by excluding the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act 1948, provides that minimum wage may not be paid to a workman employed in any famine relief work, it would be clearly violative of Article 23. The respondent however contended that when the State undertakes famine relief work with a view to providing help to the persons affected by drought and scarcity conditions, it would be difficult for the State to comply with the labour laws, because if the State were required to observe the laws, the potential of the State to provide employment to the affected persons would be crippled and the State would not be able to render help to the maximum number of affected persons and it was for this reason that the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 was excluded in relation to workmen employed in famine relief work. This contention, plausible though it may seem is in, my opinion, unsustainable and cannot be accepted. When the State undertakes famine relies work it is no doubt true that it does so in order to provide relief to persons affected by drought and scarcity conditions but none the less it is work which enures for the benefit of the State representing the society and if labour or service is provided by the affected persons for carrying out such work, there is no reason why the State should pay anything less than the minimum wage to the affected persons. It is not as if a dole or bounty is given by the State to the affected persons in order to provide relief to them against drought and scarcity conditions nor is the work to be carried out by the affected persons worthless or useless to the society so that under the guise of providing work what the State in effect and substance seeks to do is to give dole or bounty to the affected persons. The court cannot proceed on the basis that the State would undertake by way of famine relief, work which is worthless and without utility for the society and indeed no democratic State which is administered by a sane and sensible Government would do so because it would be sheer waste of human labour and resource which can usefully be diverted into fruitful and productive channels leading to the welfare of the community and creation of national asset or wear. It is difficult to appreciate why the State should require the affected persons to provide labour or service on work which is of no use to the society, instead of simply distributing dole or bounty amongst the affected persons. It is difficult to appreciate why the State should require the affected persons to provide labour or service on work which is of no use to the society, instead of simply distributing dole or bounty amongst the affected persons. There is no reason which the State should resort to such a camouflage. The presumption therefore must be that the work undertaken by the State by way of famine relief is useful to the society and productive in terms of creation of some asset or wealth and when the State exacts labour or service from the affected persons for carrying out such work, for example, a bridge or a road, which has utilised for the society and which is going to augment the wealth of the State, there can be no justification for the State not to pay minimum wage to the affected persons. The State cannot be permitted to take advantage of the helpless condition of the affected persons and extract labour or service from them on payment of less than the minimum wage. No work of utility and value can be allowed to be constructed on the blood and sweat of persons who are reduced to a state of helplessness on account of drought and scarcity conditions. The State cannot under the guise of helping these affected persons extract work of utility and value from them without paying them the minimum wage. Whenever any labour or service is taken by the State from any person, whether he be affected by drought and scarcity conditions or not, the State must pay, at the least, minimum wage to such person on pain of violation of Article 23 and the Exemption Act in so far as it excludes the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 to workmen employed on famine relief work and permits payment of less than the minimum wage to such workmen, must be held to be invalid as offending the provisions of Article 23. The Exemption Act cannot in the circumstances be relied upon by the respondent as exempting it from the liability to pay minimum wage to the workmen engaged in the construction work of Madanganj Harmara Road.” [Emphasis added] 11. It is also to be noted that in Sanjit Roy (supra) the apex court had occasion to consider the piece rate system. The Exemption Act cannot in the circumstances be relied upon by the respondent as exempting it from the liability to pay minimum wage to the workmen engaged in the construction work of Madanganj Harmara Road.” [Emphasis added] 11. It is also to be noted that in Sanjit Roy (supra) the apex court had occasion to consider the piece rate system. But in the case in hand, the appropriate Government has discontinued the system with effect from 29.05.2014, for the first time, the appropriate Government in exercise of power, embedded by clause-(b) of sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, read with sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the said Act has determined the minimum wage and the VDA. After considering the advice of the committee appointed under Clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 5 of the said Act, the minimum rates and wages in the employment of loading and unloading in Tripura with the same terms and conditions as earlier reproduced have been expressed. Since this is the origin-notification for abolishing or discontinuing the piece rate system, the notification dated 29.05.2014 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1559 of 2017] is with its entire text has been reproduced: GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA LABOUR DEPARTMENT No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/6926-38 Agartala, the 29th May, 2014 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act (Act-XI of 1948) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act and after considering the advice of the Committee appointed under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, the Governor is pleased to fix the minimum rates of wages in the employment of ‘Loading and Un-loading’ in Tripura. The rates of wages specified in column 3 of the schedule below shall be payable to the loading and un-loading workers employed in the employment ‘Loading and Un-loading’ in the State of Tripura as specified in column No.2 and 4 of the schedule. The rates of minimum wages fixed shall come into force with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. Sl. No. Category of workers Rate of wages Mode of payment 1 2 3 4 (A) Skilled worker (working more than 1 year & over 30 years of age) Rs.350/- x (26+4) days = Rs.10,500/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/Daily 2. Sl. No. Category of workers Rate of wages Mode of payment 1 2 3 4 (A) Skilled worker (working more than 1 year & over 30 years of age) Rs.350/- x (26+4) days = Rs.10,500/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/Daily 2. (B) Semi-skilled (Working more than 6 months but less than 1 year and over 30 years of age) Rs.325/- x (26+4) days =Rs.9,750/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/Daily 3. (C)Un-skilled (Working less than 6 months and age below 35 years) Rs.300/- x (26+4) days =Rs.9,000/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/Daily 4. (D) Managerial/Cleric al (Non-working categories/clerical) Rs.300/- x 30 days =Rs.9,000/- Monthly/Daily By order of the Governor, Sd/- illegible (K. Jamatia) Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura 12. Therefore, it is seen that with effect from 29.05.2014 in the entire state of Tripura piece rate system was discontinued and monthly or daily rate was fixed taking the skill for the work in consideration. Unfortunately the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs who are dealing with the PDS commodities, even thereafter has been continuing with the piece rate system in clear defiance of the decision of the appropriate Government in exercise of the power under Section 3(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. For illustration, the texts of two memorandums under No.F.13(6)-TS/DF/10/15244 dated 05.09.2016 and under No.F.13(6)-TS/DF/10/17387 dated 28.10.2016 respectively Annexure-2 & 3 of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1559 of 2017 are reproduced one after another hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (TRANSPORT AND STORAGE SECTION) GURKHABASTI, AGARTALA No.F.13 (6)-TS/DF/10/15244 Dated, Agartala, P.N.Complex, the 5th September, 2016 MEMORANDUM The State Government approves the following revision of rates of labour charges for handling of food-grains and other PDS commodities both for departmental works as well as for appointed transport contractors/State Nominees of Food CS&CA Department for the period from 01.09.2016 to 31.03.2019. The revised rates of labour handling charges are applicable across the State for all State Food Godowns except the Doorstep Delivery work from Food Godowns to F.P. Shops. Sl. No. Item of work Revised Rate Remarks 1. Unloading (from truck) & stacking for : (a) 50 kg. bag up to 16th layer irrespective of tonnage Rs.6.60 per Qtl. (a). There should not be any extra labour charges in any form, other than the specified rates. Sl. No. Item of work Revised Rate Remarks 1. Unloading (from truck) & stacking for : (a) 50 kg. bag up to 16th layer irrespective of tonnage Rs.6.60 per Qtl. (a). There should not be any extra labour charges in any form, other than the specified rates. If any allegation of lavour payment below the specified rate by TC or over-charging by labourers is established, than the difference money will be realized from the pending bills of concerned TC/State Nominee/Labourers and the amount will be given to the concerned affected party. (b). Labour charges applicable for food-grains shall equally be applicable for other commodities like Sugar, Salt etc. (c). Labour rates are irrespective of tonnage and labour rate to be determined on the basis of per quintal only. (d). Under no circumstances, non-standard bags of foodgrains shall be delivered from the Food Godowns and if detected than the concerned Store-Keeper shall be penalized including realization of penalty. (b) 50 kg. bag beyond to 16th layer irrespective of tonnage Rs.7.70 per Qtl. 2 Breaking of stack & loading into the truck irrespective of tonnage Rs.7.70 per Qtl. 3 Delivery Job: (a). Breaking of stack Rs.1.22 per Qtl. (b). Weighment Rs.4.22 per Qtl. (c). Stabdardization Rs.1.88 per Qtl. (d). Stitching without cost of Sutli (Sutli will be supplied by the Deptt.) Rs.1.22 per Qtl. 4 Breaking of stack, weighment & restacking during Physical Verification Rs.2.44 per Qtl. 5 Salvaging, Screening & blending (including breaking of stack & restacking). Rs.10.00 per quintal 2. This revised rates shall take effect from 01/09/2016 and continue up to 31.03.2019. (Dr. D. Basu, IAS) Addl. Secretary & Director Government of Tripura” “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (TRANSPORT AND STORAGE SECTION) GURKHABASTI, AGARTALA No.F.13 (6)-TS/DF/1017387 Dated, Agartala, P.N. Complex, the 28th October, 2016 MEMORANDUM In partial modification of this office earlier memorandum of even number (Despatch No.15244) dated 05/09/2016 the State Government further approves the following revision of rates of labour charges for handling of food-grains and other PDS commodities both for departmental works as well as for appointed transport contractors/State Nominees of Food CS & CA Department w.e.f. 01.11.2016 to 31.03.2019. The revised rates of labour handling charges are applicable across the State for all State Food Godown except the Doorstep Delivery work from Food Godowns to F.P. Shops. Sl. No. Item of work Revised Rate Remarks 1. The revised rates of labour handling charges are applicable across the State for all State Food Godown except the Doorstep Delivery work from Food Godowns to F.P. Shops. Sl. No. Item of work Revised Rate Remarks 1. Unloading (from truck) & stacking for : (a) up to 10th layer irrespective of tonnage Rs.6.60 per Qtl. (a). There should not be any extra labour charges in any form, other than the specified rates. If any allegation of labour payment below the specified rate by TC or overcharging by labourers is established, than the difference money will be realized from the pending bills of concerned TC/State Nominee/Labourers and the amount will be given to the concerned affected party. (b). Labour charges applicable for food-grains shall equally be applicable for other commodities like Sugar, Salt etc. (c). Labour rates are irrespective of tonnage and labour rate to be determined on the basis of per quintal only. (d). Under no circumstances, non-standard bags of foodgrains shall be delivered from the Food Godowns and if detected than the concerned Store-Keeper shall be penalized including realization of penalty. (b) beyond 10th layer irrespective of tonnage Rs.7.70 per Qtl. 2 Breaking of stack & loading into the truck irrespective of tonnage Rs.7.70 per Qtl. 3 Delivery Job: (a). Breaking of stack Rs.1.22 per Qtl. (b). Weighment Rs.4.22 per Qtl. (c). Stabdardization Rs.1.88 per Qtl. (d). Stitching without cost of Sutli (Sutli will be supplied by the Deptt.) Rs.1.22 per Qtl. 4 Breaking of stack, weighment & restacking during Physical Verification Rs.2.44 per Qtl. 5 Salvaging, Screening & blending (including breaking of stack & restacking). Rs.10.00 per quintal 2. This above revised rates shall take effect from 01/11/2016 and continue up to 31.03.2019. (Dr. D. Basu, IAS) Addl. Secretary & Director Government of Tripura” Again the appropriate Government as stated earlier by the notification dated 22.03.2017 has reasserted their policy decision. 13. Having frustrated by the action of the respondents the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, the petitioners who are loading and unloading employees or workers approached the department to introduce the new system with the minimum wages but the respondents have continued with the piece rate system demonstrating sheer defiance to those statutory notifications. Finally the writ petitioners have approached this court for appropriate direction. 14. Mr. Finally the writ petitioners have approached this court for appropriate direction. 14. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1244 of 2017 has added to the submission made by Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel after adopting the entire submission. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that when the appropriate Government has taken the decision all the employers including the respondents are bound by the said decision. No change has occurred. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has referred a decision of this court in Managing Committee Maa Anandamayee Vidyapeeth vs. The State of Tripura reported in (2015) 1 TLR 1085, where this court has observed as follows: “28. In terms of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, ‘scheduled employment’ means employment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of work forming part of 44 W.P.(C) No.193 of 2013 Page 44 of 56 such employment. The Minimum Wages Act has also defined ‘employer’. By means of Section 2(e) of the Act, ‘employer’ means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under the Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26 all the establishments including the scheduled employment of various nature. The Act has also provided the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, which provided that ‘employee’ means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed and, includes an outworker to whom any articles or materials are given out by another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be carried out either in the home of the outworker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate Government, but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the Union. 29. 29. Having regard to the definition of the employee, the complainants all fall within the definition of employee and, since they are employed under a scheduled employment, they are entitled to get the minimum wages. As such, the elements of suppression of fact, as this court has determined the issue of the nature of engagement, not on the basis of the disputed records, will not have any relevance at all. The object and policy of the legislature in enacting the Minimum Wages Act is to prevent exploitation by fixing minimum wages, which, however, depends much upon the diverse factors, even is variable from locality to locality. The minimum wage can properly be ascertained by the Government in terms of the procedure laid down in the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. To carry out effectively the purpose of the enactment, adequate power has been given to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government is thus saddled with the statutory liability as well as with the constitutional obligation to fix the minimum wage for the scheduled employment after interval of a reasonable period as prescribed by the statute.” [Emphasis added] 15. In reply, Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned state counsel has submitted that sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 clearly postulates that the appropriate Government may fix the minimum wage for the time work or a minimum time rate of wages for piece work or a minimum piece rate. Therefore, what the respondents are following are not in contravention to the provision of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has further submitted that there is some logistic difficulty in implementation of the decision taken by the appropriate Government. As the labour unions have strong grip over the activities of loading and unloading and providing the labourers for the loading and unloading work in the various go-downs and warehouses, an agreement is struck with those labour unions on the rate by entering in a contract. In this regard Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has referred to a tripartite agreement in reference to the notice dated 08.08.2014 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply filed in W.P.(C) No.17 of 2018]. Wherefrom it surfaces that the piece rate was decided between the parties to the said agreement and on the basis of that rate the respondents are carrying on loading and unloading works. Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has referred to a tripartite agreement in reference to the notice dated 08.08.2014 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply filed in W.P.(C) No.17 of 2018]. Wherefrom it surfaces that the piece rate was decided between the parties to the said agreement and on the basis of that rate the respondents are carrying on loading and unloading works. Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A., for purpose of illustration, has referred some memorandums of the respondents, how they had operated in the matter of loading and unloading in the food go-downs or in the Fair Price Shops. He has referred to the memorandum under No.F.13(6)-TS/DF/10/15244 dated 05.09.2016 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.17 of 2018], the memorandum under No. F.13(6)-TS/DF/10/17387 dated 28.10.2016 [Annexure- R/2 to the reply filed by the respondents in the same writ petition] and thereafter he has also referred to another memorandum under No.F.13(1)-TS/DF/2009(PART)12,785-810 dated 03.09.2014 [Annexure-R/4 to the said reply in the said writ petition]. In contrast, Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has referred to the notification dated 23.05.2014 which is extracted hereunder : GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA LABOUR DEPARTMENT No.F.21(43)-LAB/ENF/MW/Loading/99/6926-38 Agartala, the 23rd May, 2014 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act (Act-XI of 1948) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act and after considering the advice of the Committee appointed under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, the Governor is pleased to fix the minimum rates of wages in the employment of ‘Loading and Un-loading’ in Tripura. The rates of wages specified in column 3 of the schedule below shall be payable to the loading and un-loading workers employed in the employment ‘Loading and Un-loading’ in the State of Tripura as specified in column No.2 and 4 of the schedule. The rates of minimum wages fixed shall come into force with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. SHEDULE Sl. No. Category of workers Rate of wages Mode of payment 1 2 3 4 1. (A) Skilled worker (working more than 1 year & over 30 years of age) Rs.350/- x (26+4) days = Rs.10,500/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/ Daily 2. SHEDULE Sl. No. Category of workers Rate of wages Mode of payment 1 2 3 4 1. (A) Skilled worker (working more than 1 year & over 30 years of age) Rs.350/- x (26+4) days = Rs.10,500/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/ Daily 2. (B) Semi-skilled (Working more than 6 months but less than 1 year and over 30 years of age) Rs.325/- x (26+4) days = Rs.9,750/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/ Daily 3. (C) Un-skilled (Working less than 6 months and age below 35 years) Rs.300/- x (26+4) days = Rs.9,000/- (26 working days + 4 days leave) Monthly/ Daily 4. (D) Managerial/Clerical (Nonworking categories/clerical) Rs.300/- x 30 days = Rs.9,000/- Monthly/ Daily By order of the Governor, Sd/- illegible (K. Jamatia) Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura 16. According to Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A., the respondents have approached the appropriate Government in the Labour Department to review their decision by re-introducing the piece-rate worker. It has been stated in para-18 of the said reply that the decision is still awaited. At this juncture, Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel has seriously retorted by stating that no paper in this regard has been placed before this court. Mr. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has further submitted that unless the piece rate system is re-introduced or restored it will only create chaos and disruption in the public distribution system. In this regard, this court is constrained to observe that despite numerous accommodations made by this court and in many of the writ petitions, the reply has not filed. But in one writ petition the reply has been filed. The state counsels have stated that they would not submit further reply and they would adopt that reply for all the remaining writ petitions in this batch. 17. Mr. D. Sarkar, learned state counsel has submitted that the system has been operating within the knowledge of the Labour Department and they have not raised any objection and as such it has to be assumed that the Labour Department has not taken any action on the basis of their notification and virtually those are kept dormant. 18. It is in true sense, this court is confronted with a strange situation. 18. It is in true sense, this court is confronted with a strange situation. In one side the appropriate Government has decided to abolish the forced labour in disguise for protecting the fundamental rights of the worker/employees in view of Article 23 of the constitution of India. On the other hand, a department of the Government has been insisting that the system that has been discontinued still continue be allowed to at their behest for meeting the ‘the necessity’. This court has given a anxious consideration to the emerging obligations and is of the view that the respondents does not have any authority to act in variance or in defiance, inasmuch as no agreement can be struck out against the decision of the statutory authority else that will be in conflict and Section-23 of the Indian Contract Act would apply. The law as well is well settled and as such this court will not invest in the further discourse. 19. Having regard to the entire spectrum of the controversy as reflected in the records, this court is of the view that the action of the respondents are grossly unconstitutional and it is no less than the practice of forced labour. Hence, this court cannot allow the respondents any further to continue the piece rate system, when the appropriate Government has taken a conscious decision to discontinue the piece rate system. The piece rate wage system, as was prevalent, has been discontinued by the notification dated 29.05.2014 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1559 of 2017]. 20. Enough is enough. This court will provide only three months time to uninstall the system of piece rate wage or value. The respondents shall in the meanwhile, without any pretext give effect to the notifications dated 29.05.2014 [Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition No.1559 of 2017] and the notification dated 22.03.2017 [Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition No.1559 of 2017]. Thus, the piece rate system shall be completely abolished and the minimum wage for the loading and unloading employment in Tripura on the daily/monthly basis in terms of the notifications is extracted hereinabove shall be in force. From 01.01.2019, the payment of minimum wage shall be paid daily basis or monthly basis in tune with the relevant notifications passed by the appropriate Government, as reproduced above. From 01.01.2019, the payment of minimum wage shall be paid daily basis or monthly basis in tune with the relevant notifications passed by the appropriate Government, as reproduced above. If that is not so done, the petitioners will have the liberty to approach the Labour Department for taking punitive actions against the respondents. If no action is taken by the Labour Department the petitioners may also approach this court for taking the appropriate action against the respondents for the violation of their fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 21. Having observed thus, all the writ petitions are allowed. Before parting with the records, this court is shocked to see that the state Government has been indulging in intermediary bul-work and hence, this court has reasons to be apprehensive that the intermediary bul-work has become instrument to deprive the workers of a part of their wages in the name of engaging them for the work. That is clearly not permissible under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This is plunder of wages. The state cannot be a partner of such obnoxious act. This is the high time to pull out the end in order to observe the rule of law. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties free of cost.