Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 244 (TRI)

Fortuna Agro Plantations Ltd. v. State of Tripura

2022-05-20

A.LODH, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT A. Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.S. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of filing the present writ appeal, the writ petitioner-appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Justice S. Talapatra) in W.P.(C) No.1095 of 2018. 3. We have gone through the judgment and order as aforestated at the time of hearing of this appeal. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised four questions in his attempt to challenge the said judgment which are as under:- i. The constitution of the committee for revision of the minimum wages of the teagarden workers is contrary to Section 5(1)(a) & (b) read with Section 9 of the said Act; ii. There were no representatives of the employers i.e. the teagarden owners during the meeting held by the members of the committee; iii. Fixation of minimum wages at Rs.176/- per day for the teagarden workers is unreasonable; iv. The constitution of the committee was not notified. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the appellant. Learned Single Judge held that there is no illegality in constitution of the committee. We have also perused the notification notifying the constitution of the committee dated 13th September 2017 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura. The main objection to the constitution of the said committee appears to be inclusion of (1) Shri P.K. Sarkar, Secretary and Labour Advisor, Tea Association of India, Tripura Branch, Agartala and (2) the Managing Director, Tripura Tea Development Corporation, Agartala. Both the aforesaid members had been included as employers' representatives, which according to learned counsels appearing on behalf of appellant, were contrary to statute, that, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as they could not be the employers' representatives having no teagardens with them. 5. Both the aforesaid members had been included as employers' representatives, which according to learned counsels appearing on behalf of appellant, were contrary to statute, that, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as they could not be the employers' representatives having no teagardens with them. 5. Dealing with these questions, we find that there is no illegality in including aforesaid two members as employers' representatives because the Tea Association of India is a body constituted by the owners of the teagardens and the Managing Director of Tripura Tea Development Corporation looks after the interest of the teagardens in the State of Tripura which includes the interest of the owners of the teagardens in Tripura. Furthermore, the appellant could not make out a case that the aforesaid two members acted in a manner which was found to be detrimental to the interest of the teagarden owners. That apart, it is clearly shown in the said notification dated 13th September, 2017 that the authority concerned had notified it in the official gazette in terms of Clause-(a) Sub-section- (1) of Section-5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act 11 of 1948). So, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner-appellant was unaware of the notification forming the aforesaid committee for revision of minimum wages for the teagarden workers. As such, raising such claim at a belated stage and that too, after recommendation and finalization of rate of wages is unacceptable. 6. The second question raised by the appellant has already been answered in the preceding paragraph. Now, dealing with the most crucial question as raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that determination of Rs.176/- per day as the minimum wages of the teagarden workers is unreasonable, we are of the opinion that such determination has been made after considering the all aspects and after deliberations between the members of the constituted committee. 7. After going through the minutes of the meeting, we find that one of the representatives of the teagarden workers had demanded Rs.300/- per day as minimum wages of the workers of the teagardens. 7. After going through the minutes of the meeting, we find that one of the representatives of the teagarden workers had demanded Rs.300/- per day as minimum wages of the workers of the teagardens. But to avoid the disputes between the members of the committee, one of the members of the committee had proposed to follow the National Floor Level Minimum Wages rate which was determined @ Rs.176/- per day for the workmen (in this case, the teagarden workers) and majority of the members of the committee had agreed to such proposal. Accordingly, said rate was finally notified by the Government of Tripura, Labour Department through its Notification dated 4th January, 2018, which is as under:- 'The revised minimum rates of wages shall come into force with effect from the date of publication. SCHEDULE Category of employees Minimum rates of wages per day 1 2 (a) Adult (Male and Female) Rs.176/- per day. (b) Non Adult (Male and Female) Rs. 88/- per day. The above rates are not including the value of concessional rated ration and other benefits etc.' 8. As we have already held that there is no illegality and unreasonableness in the determination of the rate of the minimum wages as indicated hereinabove for the teagarden workers, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.