Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 134 of 2025 Guru Ghasidas University Through Registrar Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495009 ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
taking note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the rates of wages, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur, while passing the order impugned exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Consequently, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set-aside leaving open the claim(s) of respondent/workers to get their grievances, if any, redressed before the appropriate forum. 8) Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby allowed at the admission stage itself. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.01 14:37:45 +0530
Arguments
1. Shri Bheemrao Bagde (National Vice President) All India Central Council Of Trade Unions (Aicctu) Add Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 10, Ambedkar Chowk, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491441 2. Director, M/s Idea Inc. Management Pvt. Ltd. (Rep. By Through Shri Manab Paul) Add-03, Pampashree Tower, Bottle House To Avanti Vihar Road Kavita Nagar, Raipur District Riapu Chhattisgarh 492006 3. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bilaspur, Main Road, Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 30-06-2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Appl. No. MWA-06/2022 dated 19.03.2025, whereby applications moved under Section 21(1) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 have been allowed and the petitioner– 2 University as well as contractor–Respondent No. 2 have been directed to make payment of a total of Rs. 1,62,67,878/- [Rs. 81,33,939/- towards less payment (difference of wages) + Rs.81,33,939/- towards one-time compensation] to workman Shri Krishna Manohar and 98 others. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workmen were deployed by the contractor to work under the petitioner; they worked from 01.04.2016 till 28.02.2021; the tender awarded to the contractor was canceled by the petitioner in month of June, 2021 as the contractor failed to make payment of wages to the workmen. He further submits that wages payable to workmen are not being disputed by the petitioner. He contends that respondent No. 1 filed multiple claim applications under Section 21(1) of the Act, 1948 in respect of Shri Krishna Manohar and 114 other workmen which were not maintainable and the learned Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur (C.G.) exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing such applications. He further contends that respondent No. 1 had the alternative remedy to move an application under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Versus Chandi Lal Saha & Ors. 1 and the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in WPL No. 5940 of 2008, parties being Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. Versus Authority under Minimum Wages Act & Regional Commissioner & Ors. [dated 01.02.2018]. He argues that the liability is on the contractor 1. 1991 LAB I.C. 524 3 to pay wages to workmen whereas the learned Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur fastened the liability upon the petitioner if the contractor fails to make payment. He prays to quash the order impugned. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 supports the order impugned. He submits that if the petitioner disputes the amount of wages payable to the workmen, the application under Section 21(1) of Act, 1948 would be maintainable. He contends that no objection was raised by the petitioner before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Bilaspur, therefore applications were allowed. He argues that the liability has been fastened with the petitioner as it is the principal employer and the contractor was engaged by it. He prays to dismiss this petition. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi lal Saha & ors. (1991 LAB I.C. 524) in para-17 held as under:- “17. In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workmen demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances the remedy under Section 20 of the Act was not available to the workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” 6) The Co-Ordinate Bench in WPL No. 5940 of 2008 in the matter of Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act & Regional Labour Commissioner and 4 others passed on 02.01.2018 in para 10 held as under:- “10. Subsequently, relying upon both the aforesaid judgments, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sri Binod Kumar Agrawal v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Another, 1992 LAB I.C. 1303, has taken a similar stand wherein it has been held that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act under Section 20 is not empowered to decide the entitlement of the workers except for deciding the minimum wage which would be payable to a worker under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and for all other claims of a worker the appropriate remedy has been decided to be either under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 7) In light of the authoritative decisions referred to herein above and also