Yudhisthir Mahto vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioners, Yudhisthir Mahto and Pankaj Kumar Gupta, appointed as Data Entry Operators on 15.04.2015 at Murisemar Check Post under the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Palamau, sought a direction for regular payment of their honorarium. They claimed to have worked continuously from April 2015 to December 2016, including Sundays and holidays, but were not paid for these days. The petitioners contended they were entitled to payment for Sundays and holidays as per Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act. The respondents, represented by the State, stated that the petitioners were paid honorarium at a daily wage rate of Rs. 196.00 as fixed by the Labour Department, but not for Sundays and holidays. They also asserted that the petitioners had worked for 26 days, as evidenced by the bill book register, and that the petitioners' claims regarding non-payment were false.

Held

The Court held that it was satisfied that the petitioners had already been paid their honorariums for which they were entitled. The Court observed that it, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could not adjudicate matters involving disputed facts. The Court noted that the respondents had stated that the petitioners were paid at a daily wage rate of Rs. 196.00, but not for Sundays and holidays, and that the petitioners had worked for 26 days. Given the disputed nature of the facts, particularly regarding the actual number of days worked and the entitlement to payment for Sundays and holidays, the Court found it inappropriate to decide the matter in a writ petition. The Court advised the petitioners that if they felt aggrieved, they should approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed as Data Entry Operators, are entitled to payment for Sundays and holidays worked, in addition to their daily wages, under Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they are entitled to payment for all days worked, including Sundays and holidays, citing Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which mandates payment for work done on rest days. They claimed that the respondents were excluding these days from their honorarium payments. Respondent's Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioners were paid honorarium at a fixed daily wage rate of Rs. 196.00, as per the Labour Department's fixation. They asserted that payment for Sundays and holidays was not admissible and that the petitioners had worked for only 26 days, as per the bill book register. They further suggested that if the petitioners remained aggrieved, they should approach the Labour Court for redressal of their industrial dispute.