| Headnote |
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – ss.2(e), 2(i), 3, 7, 8 and 20(1) – Scheme of the Act – Tripartite memorandum of settlement signed by the appellant, contractor (through whom the service of the contract labour was engaged) and the respondents-contract labour, under which the contract labour was to be paid Rs.11.65/- per day over and above the minimum wages notified by the appropriate Government under the 1948 Act – Prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993 issued by the appropriate Government, however, contract labour engaged prior to the notification was allowed to continue working in the captive mine of the appellant in Distt. Jabalpur upto April 1996, when their service was terminated after they proceeded on strike – No fresh agreement in the interregnum period (17th March, 1993 to April, 1996) was executed – Contract labour sought parity with the wages payable to the direct/regular employees of the appellant – Allowed by the Prescribed Authority – Confirmed by the High Court – Held: There are no pleadings on record and the burden was on the respondents to establish that the duties discharged by each of the employee was same/similar to that of regular/direct employee appointed by the appellant – In absence of the initial burden being discharged by the respondents, the onus could not have been shifted on the appellant to counter the nature of work discharged by each of the workmen – Scheme of the Act clearly manifests that it is primarily concerned with fixing rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment of work on a day of rest and is not intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment of wages for which provision has been made in other laws such as the 1936 Act and the 1947 Act– Further, after issuance of the prohibition notification, the provisions of the CLRA Act or 1971 Rules framed thereunder would not be available to either of the party to strengthen its claim – Minimum wages as prayed by the respondents could be claimed independently under the 1948 Act, which indisputedly was Rs. 11.65/- per day over the minimum wages payable to each of the respondent (2040 employees) and was indeed complied with by the appellants – Mere assertion of fact that the contract labour which was allowed to continue after the prohibition notification was performing same or similar kind of work is not sufficient to endorse their entitlement of claiming wages notified for direct/regular employees of the establishment applicable universally to all the steel industries – Order of the prescribed authority, confirmed by the High Court, set aside – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – ss.7-9, 10(1), 12– Payment of Wages Act,1936 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – CLRA Central Rules, 1971 – rr.25(2)(iv) & (v), 25(2)(v)(a) – Constitution of India – Arts. 12,14, 39(d) – Principle of equal pay for equal work. Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – s.3 – Fixation of minimum wages under – Considerations for – Discussed. Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Enquiry under – Scope of – Discussed. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – ss.7- 9, 10(1), 12 – Held: 1970 Act is a complete code in itself and regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith – Act does not provide for total abolition of the contract labour, but only for its abolition in certain circumstances, and to regulate the employment of contract labour in the establishments registered u/s.7 and working through the contractors holding licence u/s.12. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 – r.25 – When not applicable – Discussed. |
