Col. (Retd) v. S. Bhalothia, Prop. M
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.18 11:06:21 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:10590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 134 of 2018 Central Warehousing Corporatino Through Its Regional Manager Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office Cwc Compound, Rawabhata, Post Office - Birgaon, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act 1948 And Regioanl Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Col. (Retd) V.S. Bhalothaia Prop. M/s Batalik Security, Plot No. 763, Main Road Kosabadi, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. L.M. Meitei S/o Lashram Meitei R/o H.No. 114, New Sws Club, Cherapur Wangjing, Thobal, Manipur,, District : Thoubal, Manipur 4. Shri Siv Mohan Singh Rda Colony, I Block, 327, Boria Khurd, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 135 of 2018 Central Warehousing Corporation Through Its Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office Cwc Compound, Rawabhata, P. O. Birgaon, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 493221., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act 1948 And Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur, D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector- 1, Avanti Vihar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 2. Col. (Retd) V. S. Bhalothia, Prop. M/s Batalik Security Plot No. 763, Main Road Kosabadi, Korba- 495677 Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3. Shri Satyapal Singh, Near Shiv Mandir, Sriramnagar, New Changorabhata, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Shri Hari Ram Singh, C/o M. L. Sharma, Satyam Vihar, Raipura Chowk, Mahadeoghat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Shri Sushil Pandey, H. No. 34/ 1732, Esaipara, Shyam Nagar, Talibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Shri Bhupesh Lokhande, P. P. Vishwas Clinic, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Shri Dilip Kumar, H. No. 838, Mahamaya Mandir Ward, Dulari Nagar, Near Gaura Chaura, Kailash Puri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH WPL No. 137 of 2018 Central Warehousing Corporation Through Its Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office Cwc Compound, Rawabhata, Po Birgaon, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 493221, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act 1948 And Regional Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur, D- 6, Adarsh Society, Sector - 1, Avanti Vihar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Proprietor, M/s Batalik Security, Plot No. 763, Main Road Kosabadi, Korba - 495677 Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. The Asstt. Secretary General, Federation Of Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union, Wz - 677, Shiv Nagar, Ext. Jail Road, New Delhi -110058., District : New Delhi, Delhi --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ UOI : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, C.G.C. For Private Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04/03/2025 1) The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law
Decision
and facts therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2) By way of these writ petitions, Central Warehousing Corporation/ petitioner has challenged the orders (Annexure P/1) passed by the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 i.e. Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur (C.G.) whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of minimum wages to the private respondents/ trade-union which is reflected in the chart below:- Writ Petition No. Name of Employee/ Security Guard Total Amount to be paid (including nominal token compensation) WPL/134/2018 L.M. Meitei Siv Mohan Singh WPL/135/2018 Satyapal Singh Hari Ram Singh Sushil Pandey Rs. 57,500/- Rs. 57,500/- Rs. 57,500/- Rs. 57,500/- Rs. 57,500/- WPL/137/2018 (employees represented through trade union) Bhupesh Lokhande Rs. 57,500/- Dilip Kumar Rs. 57,500/- Mukesh Verma Nil Ram Charan Sahu Rs. 92,671/- Bhupendra Yadav Rs. 1,35,158/- Tameshwar Das Manik Rs. 1,48,448/- Chowaram Kurrey Rs. 93,799/- Rajnish Pandey Rs. 74,851/- Boni Pos Toppo Rs. 1,36,102/- Laxmikant Verma Rs. 1,08,568/- 4 Vivek Verma Rs. 1,50,102 Javdev Pradhan Rs. 1,27,039/- 3) Facts of the present cases are that the petitioner/Corporation floated a tender on 21.11.2014 for the supply of Security Guards in Central Warehouses in the State of Chhattisgarh. M/s Batalik Security/ respondent No. 2 participated in the bid and being the lowest bidder, the work-order was issued in its favor for a period of two years w.e.f 13.02.2015. An agreement was also entered into between the parties; respondent No. 2 deployed ex-servicemen as security guards, who were deployed under the petitioner for the period between February, 2015 till July, 2016. The contract was terminated vide order dated 15.07.2016. The employees moved applications before the authority under the Act, 1948 for payment of minimum wages as there was a difference between the actual wages which were being paid to those employees and the minimum wages which were agreed upon between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The authority concerned issued notice to the petitioner; the petitioner contested the case and orders impugned were passed. 4) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Corporation/ principal employer submits that applications U/s 20(1) of the Act, 1948 were not maintainable before the authority concerned. He further submits that there was no dispute with regard to minimum wages and the employees through their union had claimed arrears of wages for the period of 6-7 months, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the authority concerned were not maintainable. He contends that the 5 authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining such applications. He further contends that the employees were engaged by respondent No. 2, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner alone, and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employees/Federation of Central Warehousing Corporation Employees Union submits that applications were moved by the employees/trade Union against non-payment of minimum wages. He further submits that the dispute involved was with regard to minimum wages payable to the employees (security guards). He referred to Section 20(1) of the Act, 1948. He contends that applications were moved by the employees whereby they pleaded that they had been paid wages at a lower side than the minimum wages fixed for their category of employment. He further contends that respondent No. 2 being their contractor owed responsibility to pay the due wages to the employees engaged by it and later, the petitioner also failed to make payment of minimum wages to them, therefore, applications were moved. 6) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/ M/s Batalik Security (contractor) submits that employees failed to prove the difference in the wages by presenting evidence and there is no finding with regard to the difference in the minimum wages and the actual wages paid to the employees. He further submits that the contract was terminated on 15.07.2016 and employees approached the authority at a 6 belated stage. 7) Learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union India submits that the authority has passed a well-reasoned order. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9) The applications were moved by the trade union/employees before the authority under the Act, 1948 for payment of minimum wages as there was an allegation with regard to the difference between the wages which were agreed into between the parties and the wages which were being paid to the employees. The matters were contested by the petitioner herein before the concerned authority. Respondent No. 2 appeared initially before the authority but later on chose to remain absent. 10) Sections 20 (1) and (2) of the Act, 1948 read as under:- (1)The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14, to employees employed or paid in that area. 7 (2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under sub-section (3): Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable: Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. A bare reading of these provisions makes it clear that the claim with regard to the difference in the minimum wages can be raised before the authority. In the cases at hand, applications were moved by the employees/trade union claiming therein difference in the minimum wages but the order passed by the authority would show that there is no evidence in this regard; neither the employees/trade union nor the principal employer and contractor adduced evidence in either way. The employees could not prove the fact that there was a substantial difference in the wages agreed into between the parties and the wages which were being paid to the employees and the principal employer and contractor also failed to prove that wages were being paid to the employees according to the rate fixed as per the agreement. 11) With regard to the issue regarding jurisdiction raised by Mr. Deshmukh, as the employees in the application have categorically stated that they 8 were being paid lesser wages, the matter was thus within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned under the Act, 1948 and the contention raised in this regard is hereby turned down. 12) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, matters are remitted back to the authority concerned to decide them afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties involved. As the applications were moved by the employees/trade union in the year 2016, the authority concerned is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13) The employees/trade union, principal employer and contractor are directed to remain present before the authority concerned on the 25th March, 2025. If any of the parties fail to appear on the given date, the authority concerned shall proceed with the matters accordingly. 14) Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Ajinkya Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE