Anand.R vs. Regional Labour Commissioner And
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, claiming to be employees of respondent No. 2 (M/s ITI Ltd.), filed claim applications under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, seeking payment of wages. Respondent No. 1, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), dismissed these applications. The dismissal was based on the finding that the petitioners' employment did not fall under the scheduled employment notified by the Central Government. The petitioners argued that this specific plea was not raised by the respondents, who instead contended that no employer-employee relationship existed as they were deployed through a labour contractor. The petitioners further contended that Respondent No. 1 failed to consider the nature of their employment in light of Section 2(g) of the Act.
Held
The Court held that the Regional Labour Commissioner erred in dismissing the claim applications without adequately considering the nature of the petitioners' employment in relation to the definition of 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the phrase 'any process or branch of work forming part of such employment' in Section 2(g) should be interpreted broadly. Citing the Delhi High Court's decision in SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA, the Court noted that activities incidental to the main work, such as clerical or support roles, can fall within the ambit of scheduled employment. The Court observed a potential nexus between the petitioners' work and the 'scheduled employment' as defined and notified. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Regional Labour Commissioner for reconsideration. The Commissioner was directed to pass an appropriate order after affording opportunities to the parties within six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Regional Labour Commissioner erred in dismissing the claim applications by holding that the petitioners' employment was not a 'scheduled employment' under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, without adequately considering the nature of their work in light of Section 2(g) of the Act? Petitioners' Arguments: The petitioners contended that the Regional Labour Commissioner failed to properly consider the nature of their employment in relation to the definition of 'scheduled employment' under Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. They argued that the respondents did not raise the specific plea of non-application of the Act based on scheduled employment, but rather focused on the absence of a direct employer-employee relationship due to the involvement of a labour contractor. The petitioners relied on an order dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the High Court of Delhi's decision in SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. VS. CYFUTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. to support their claim that their work could be considered part of a scheduled employment. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents on the specific legal issues, other than the general contention that no 'principle employer' and 'employee' relationship existed because the petitioners were deployed through a labour contractor.
Sections Cited
Section 2(g), Section 20
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners claiming to be the employees of respondent No.2 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore – Respondent No.1 passed in claim application No.47(6)2023-B2 (36 cases) by which the applications filed by the petitioners seeking payment of wages as per the provision of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been dismissed.
The claim petitions filed by the petitioners individually under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 have been dismissed holding that the employment in which the petitioners are engaged do not come within schedule employment notified by the Central Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed by respondent No.1 to the said claim petitions submits that there was no such plea raised by the respondents except contending that there was no ‘principle employer’ and ‘employee’ relationship between respondent No.1 as the petitioners were NC: 2024:KHC:38931 deploy through a labour contractor. He further submits that apart from there being no plea with regard to non application of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 respondent No.1 - the NC: 2024:KHC:38931 No.6 of the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence before the respondents authority which is extracted herein for immediate reference:
“1. Telephone Checking and Shipping/Packing.
Welding Work
Power Press
Powder Coating.
Plating
Vacuum Packing
Black oxide Coating
Hot Air Leveling
Stripping
Etching
HDPE optical Cable Work.
Milling Work
Lathe Work
SheetCutting
Forming of Sheetmetal.
Screen printing
Acid Pickling
CNC Drilling.
Gem Scoring
Raw Material cutting
Electrical work
Photo Printing
HDPE Jumbo and Forklifter, Grade 1
Winding of Finished HDPE cables.”
The order dated 27.03.2019 now furnished by the petitioners reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Central Government vide Notification No. S.0. 188(E) dated 19 January, 2017 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment the undersigned, hereby revise the rates of Variable Dearness Allowance on the basis of the average consumer price index number for the preceding period of six months ending on 31.12.2018 reaching 301.33 from 288.33 (base 2001= 100) and thereby resulting in an increase of 13 NC: 2024:KHC:38931 points for Industrial Workers as under. This order shall come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2019. The rates of Variable Dearness Allowance for workers employed in CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF ROADS OR RUNWAYS OR IN BUILDING OPERATIONS INCLUDING LAYING DOWN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, WIRELESS, RADIO, TELEVISION, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH AND OVERSEAS COMMUNICATION CABLES AND SIMILAR OTHER UNDERGROUND CABLING WORK, ELECTRIC LINES, WATER SUPPLY LINES AND SEWERAGE PIPE LINES.
Category of worker Rates of V.D.A. Area wise per day (in Rupees)
A B C Unskilled 61 50 40 Semi- Skilled/unskilled Supervisory 66 57 47 Skilled / Clerical 73 66 57 Highly Skilled 79 73 66
Therefore the minimum rates of wages showing the basic rates and Variable Dearness Allowance payable w.e.f. 01.04.2019 will be as under:-
Category of worker Rates of wages including V.D.A. per day (in Rupees)
A Area B Area C Area Unskilled 523+61=584 437+50=487 350+40=390 Semi- Skilled/Unskilled Supervisory 579+66=645 494+57=551 410+47=457 Skilled/Clerical 637+73=710 579+66=645 494+57=551 NC: 2024:KHC:38931 Highly Skilled 693+79=772 637+73=710 579+66=645
The VDA has been rounded off to the next higher rupee as per the decision of the Minimum Wages Central Advisory Board. The classification of workers under different categories will be same as in Part- I of the notification, whereas classification of cities will be same as in the Part- Il of the notification dated 19th January, 2017. The present classification of cities into areas A, B & C is enclosed at Annexure 1 for ready reference.”
Definition of term schedule employment as provided under Section 2(g) of the Act, as reads as under: “Scheduled employment" means an employment specified in schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment.”
Perusal of the nature of the work as described at para No.6 of the affidavit read in light of the order dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment would indicate that there appears to be nexus between the nature of work being carried on by the petitioners and the “schedule employment”.
This has been taken note of by the High Court of Delhi in the case SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA (supra) wherein at para Nos.3, 15, 25 and 26 the High Court of Delhi has held as under: NC: 2024:KHC:38931 “3. The employees were all working as Technical Support Executive (TSE) in the Internet Helpline Department of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) (Respondent No. 2 in the employees' appeals) for broad band services having helpline No. 1504. This was akin to call centre work. Their main work was to attend to complaints incidental to the telecommunication operations of MTNL. While the employees worked under the direct employment of CIPL, the arrangement was that MTNL would enter into fresh contracts with private parties for supply of workmen while the employees like the ten Appellants before this Court continued working for MTNL. CIPL is one such private company primarily engaged in the business of providing workmen.
The first question that requires to be considered is whether the impugned notification dated 19th Janurary, 2017 issued by the Government of India applies to CIPL. The relevant portion of the said notification reads as under: "S.O. 188(E).--Whereas the draft proposal to revise the minimum rates of wages per day payable to the Schedule mentioned categories of employees engaged in the employment of "Construction of Maintenance of Roads or Runways or in Building Operations including laying down Underground Electric, Wireless, Radio, Television, Telephone, Telegraph and Overseas Communication Cables and similar other underground Cabling Work, Electric Lines, Water Supply Lines and Sewerage Pipe Lines" was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub- section (ii) as required by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment number S.O. 2834 (E), dated the 1st September, 2016 for information and inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, till the expiry of the period of two months from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing the said notification were made available to the public;"
There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the employees that the expression 'any process or branch of work forming part of such NC: 2024:KHC:38931 employment' occurring in Section 2 (g) MWA should receive the widest interpretation.' A 'process' would include any work incidental to the main work and in the context of laying of underground cables including telephone, telegraph and overseas cables, it could involve a range of activities-unskilled, skilled, highly skilled or semi-skilled. For instance, the driver of a truck in which the cables are loaded would also be a person in such employment, since that process is incidental to the main work of laying cables. There could be for instance work of clerks and typists in an office arranging for the requisitioning of the underground cables. There could be numerous such incidental tasks without which the work of laying of underground cables itself cannot be meaningfully performed. This explains the legislature's deliberate use of the words 'or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment' in defining 'scheduled employment' under Section 2 (g) MWA.
Turning to the notification itself, in the list of skilled, semi-skilled, highly skilled, clerical and unskilled workmen there is a very wide range of work involved. In the clerical category are included computer/data entry operators, telephone operators, typists and any other categories by whatever named called which are of clerical nature. Even in the highly skilled categories, there are Plumbers, Welders, Masons and Foreman etc. Clearly, therefore, the employees in the present case would fall in the clerical cadre of persons employed in connection with the main work of laying of underground cables.
In view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter, this Court do not see any reasons to differ from the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the matter. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. NC: 2024:KHC:38931 The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the applications filed by the petitioners and shall pass appropriate order after affording opportunities to the parties within outer limit of six months from the date of certified copy of this order. (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE
PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.