9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "employee" under Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. Whether ex-employees are entitled to seek relief under Section 20(2) of the Act. 3. Conflict between different High Court decisions on the eligibility of ex-employees to file applications under the Act. 4. The significance of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and Form VI in determining the scope of Section 20(2) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involved a dispute where ex-employees of an Army School claimed that they were not paid the minimum wages fixed by the State Government. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "employee" as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. The High Court relied on previous decisions to conclude that the term did not include ex-employees, leading to the dismissal of the employees' claims. 2. The crux of the matter was whether ex-employees had the right to seek relief under Section 20(2) of the Act. The employees contended that they were entitled to relief as they had not been paid the minimum wages during their employment. The Supreme Court analyzed the language of the Act and the Rules to determine the eligibility of ex-employees to file applications under the Act for seeking appropriate relief. 3. The judgment highlighted the conflicting decisions of different High Courts on the eligibility of ex-employees to seek relief under the Act. While some courts followed a literal interpretation excluding ex-employees, others took a purposive approach allowing past employees to claim relief. The Supreme Court reconciled these conflicting views by emphasizing the importance of considering the legislative intent and the provisions of the Rules and Form VI in determining the scope of Section 20(2) of the Act. 4. The significance of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and Form VI was crucial in resolving the issue of ex-employees' eligibility to seek relief. The Court noted that Form VI explicitly allowed past employees to file applications under Section 20(2), indicating a broader interpretation of the term "employee." By considering the Rules and Form VI alongside the statutory provisions, the Court concluded that both past and present employees were entitled to move under the Act for relief, aligning with a purposive approach to uphold the legislative intent. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matters back for further consideration, emphasizing the importance of expeditious disposal of the cases. The judgment clarified the eligibility of ex-employees to seek relief under the Minimum Wages Act, emphasizing a purposive interpretation in line with the legislative intent and supported by the Rules and Form VI.
|
