9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1922 - SC - Indian LawsInitiation of proceedings by the workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - worker in employment after issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th March 1993 under the Contract Labour( Abolition) Act, 1970 - HELD THAT - After discontinuance of the service of the contract labour by the respective contractor in April, 1996, 2040 employees/contract labour through their union filed their respective applications in the year 1998 under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the prescribed authority to claim parity with the wages payable to the employees who were direct/regular employees of the establishment of SAIL under the Minimum Wages Act. The claim of the respondents in their application filed under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was that as they had discharged the same or similar nature of work as that of direct employee of the establishment, it makes them entitled for the wages which are payable to an employee who is directly/regularly appointed in the establishment to whom wages are paid in terms of NJCS memorandum of Agreement dated 30th July, 1975. In the instant case, the establishment was duly registered under Section 7 of the Act and the contractor through whom the contract labour was engaged was holding its licence under Section 12 of the Act but in the changed circumstances, the appropriate Government took a decision to put a prohibition in making employment of contract labour in scheduled employment for various reasons which is not a subject matter of enquiry in the instant case and in consequence of the prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993 published under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the contract labour working in the establishment ceased to function and the contract between the principal employer and contractor stands extinguished. In the instant case, after issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993 under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act having being published, in our considered view, the provisions of the CLRA Act or CLRA Central Rules, 1971 framed thereunder would not be available to either of the party to strengthen its claim - minimum wages as prayed for in the application filed by respondents before the prescribed authority under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 could be claimed independently under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which indisputedly in the instant case was Rs. 11.65/ per day over the minimum wages to be paid by the appellant to each of the respondent (2040 employees) in terms of the agreement executed between the parties and that was indeed complied with by the appellants in its true spirit. The order of the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 dated 2nd December, 2003 and confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment dated 11th December, 2006 are unsustainable and deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to contract laborers after the prohibition notification under the CLRA Act, 1970. 2. Entitlement of contract laborers to wages and benefits equivalent to regular employees of SAIL. 3. Jurisdiction of the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to decide claims of contract laborers. 4. Validity of parallel proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Compliance with Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CLRA Rules, 1971 regarding the principle of equal pay for equal work. 6. Impact of the tripartite agreement dated 12th November 1991 on the wages of contract laborers. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to contract laborers after the prohibition notification under the CLRA Act, 1970: The Supreme Court noted that the contract laborers continued working in the establishment of SAIL after the prohibition notification dated 17th March 1993 under the CLRA Act. The laborers claimed wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, asserting that they should be treated as direct employees of SAIL post the prohibition notification. However, the court emphasized that the Minimum Wages Act is primarily concerned with fixing rates of wages and not for the enforcement of payment of wages. The court further clarified that the Minimum Wages Act does not cover claims for wages equivalent to regular employees unless there is a dispute about the rates of wages. 2. Entitlement of contract laborers to wages and benefits equivalent to regular employees of SAIL: The laborers argued that they were entitled to wages and benefits as per the NJCS memorandum of agreement applicable to regular employees of SAIL. They claimed that their work was similar to that of regular employees, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. The court, however, found no pleadings or evidence to establish that the contract laborers performed the same or similar duties as regular employees. The burden of proof was on the laborers, which they failed to discharge. The court concluded that mere continuation of work post-prohibition notification does not entitle contract laborers to wages equivalent to regular employees. 3. Jurisdiction of the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to decide claims of contract laborers: The court examined the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It held that the authority is meant to resolve disputes about rates of wages and ensure compliance with the minimum rates prescribed by the government. The court ruled that the prescribed authority overstepped its jurisdiction by entertaining claims for wages equivalent to regular employees, which should be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Validity of parallel proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The court noted that parallel proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act and the Industrial Disputes Act were unwarranted. It emphasized that disputes regarding the principle of equal pay for equal work should be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, not the Minimum Wages Act. The court criticized the prescribed authority for proceeding with the claims despite objections and ruled that such applications were not maintainable under the Minimum Wages Act. 5. Compliance with Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CLRA Rules, 1971 regarding the principle of equal pay for equal work: The laborers invoked Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CLRA Rules, which mandates equal pay for contract laborers performing the same or similar work as regular employees. The court, however, found no evidence or pleadings to support the claim that the laborers performed similar work. It reiterated that the burden of proof was on the laborers, which they failed to meet. Consequently, the court ruled that the contract laborers were not entitled to wages equivalent to regular employees under the CLRA Rules. 6. Impact of the tripartite agreement dated 12th November 1991 on the wages of contract laborers: The court acknowledged the tripartite agreement, which stipulated that contract laborers would be paid Rs. 11.65 per day over the minimum wages notified by the government. The court noted that this agreement was complied with until the termination of the laborers' services in April 1996. It ruled that the laborers' claim for wages equivalent to regular employees was not supported by the tripartite agreement or the Minimum Wages Act. The court concluded that the laborers were entitled only to the wages agreed upon in the tripartite agreement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the judgment of the High Court, ruling that the laborers were not entitled to wages equivalent to regular employees of SAIL. The court emphasized that claims for equal pay for equal work should be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, not the Minimum Wages Act. The parallel proceedings were deemed unwarranted, and the laborers' applications were dismissed.
|
