R.M. Subramani Vs The Presiding Officer I Addl., The Commissioner Thiruvalangadu Panchayat Union and Veeraraghavapuram Panchayat

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

K. Chandru, J.@mdashIn all these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners areworkmen. Aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in the ClaimPetition Nos. 41/1998, 1249/1997, 1254/1997, 42/1998,1252/1997, 1253/997, 1255/1997 and 1224 of 1997 dated29.2.2008, the present Writ Petitions were filed.

2. The Writ Petitions were admitted on 16.10.2008 and31.10.2008. Since in the earlier round of litigation, thePetitioners were successful for getting an exparte order,which was challenged by the contesting Respondents beforethis Court and at the time of disposal of the WritPetitions, this Court had directed the amounts to bedeposited to the credit of various Claim Petitions. Thecontesting Respondents have also deposited the amount.Therefore, the Petitioners in the second round oflitigation have lost their case and convinced this Courtthat since they have a prima facie case, the amountsalready in deposit could not be withdrawn by the contestingRespondent. Hence, this Court granted an interiminjunction restraining the Labour Court from permitting thecontesting Respondents to withdraw the amount. But, theinterim injunction is still in force.

3. The claim made by the Petitioners are that theywere working as Pump Operator for several years and theyhave not been paid the minimum wages fixed by the StateGovernment in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 449, Labour and EmploymentDepartment dated 6.6.1997 and clarified by the letter ofCommissioner of Labour dated 7.2.2001. Initially, thePetitioners workmen made the Commissioner forThiruvalangadu Panchayat Union as well as the concernedPresident of Veeraraghavapuram Panchayat, Ramapuram Panchayat, Muthukondapuram and Pazhayanur Panchayatsas party Respondents to the Claim Petitions.

4. Before the Labour Court, the petitions filedunder Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial DisputesAct were assigned to be Claim Petition Numbers andthe following table will show the name of theworker, the number of the Claim Petition and thePanchayat in which they are working:

5. On notice from the Labour Court, the counterstatements were filed and the Commissioner of PanchayatUnion took the stand that the Panchayats are separateentities and he cannot be described as an employer and theywere wrongly joined as party and therefore No. relief can beclaimed against them and the Claim Petitions should bedismissed as against them. In respect of the Panchayats,the stand was that the Minimum Wage Notification is notapplicable to the Pump Operator and their employment isonly casual and they were working only one or two hours per day. The Panchayats, which were made as parties in these Claim Petitions were made ex parte.

6. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workmenidentical set of documents were filed and they were markedas Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the Respondent, 5documents were filed and marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. Nooral evidence was let in. The Labour Court on the basis ofthe materials placed before it came to the conclusion thatsince the Panchayat Union Commissioner is not an employer,no relationship can be claimed as against him and he iswrongly impleaded as party Respondent.

7. On the claim for minimum wages, the Labour Courtheld that the Minimum Wages Act provides for providingminimum wages and it will not apply to a petition underSection 33-C (2) of the Act. Strangely, the Labour Courtheld that since there is No. pre-existing right on the partof the workmen to file a petition u/s 33-C (2),the claim is not maintainable. The Labour Court also heldthat the Petitioners were guilty of delay and laches.

8. As to whether the claim for minimum wages can be made in a petition u/s 33-C (2) of the Act came to be considered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Municipal Council, Akola Vs. Second Labour Court, Nagpur and Others, . In that case, it is held that though u/s 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, limitation is prescribed by the Minimum Wages Authorities from computing the amount, such limitations are not available in a petition u/s 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this context, it is useful to refer to paragraph 5 and it was observed as follows:

5. As observed by the Supreme Court in TownMunicipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Hubli (1969 II LLJ 651), nolimitation is prescribed for filling applicationunder Section 33C (2) of the Act. However, a period oflimitation has been prescribed by the MinimumWages Act. Therefore, so far as the authorityconstituted under the Minimum Wages Act isconcerned, it has No. jurisdiction to entertain theclaim made by the employees which is barred bylimitation, unless the delay in filing theapplication is condoned by the Authority. That isnot the case so far as the Labour Courtconstituted under the Industrial Disputes Act isconcerned. As No. period of limitation isprescribed for filing an application undeRs. 33C(2) of the Act, it is open for the LabourCourt to entertain the claims made by theemployees which are barred by limitation under theprovisions of the Minimum Wages Act. This aspectof the matter has been considered by this Court in Union of India v. Shri Samuel Peters, Special Civil Application No. 845 of 1969, decided on 15.1.1974.

9. The Supreme Court in Town Municipal, Council, Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli and Others etc., has held that the limitationwill not apply to the proceedings u/s 33-C (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. Though the Labour Court maybe rightly saying that the Commissioner of Panchayat Unionwas not an employer in relation to employees of thePanchayat, but with reference to the other findings thatthe Claim Petition u/s 33-C (2) is notmaintainable and the claim petition u/s 33-C (2) cannot be filed with considerable delay, are erroneous and contrary to the decisions cited supra.

10. It must be noted that in W.P. Nos. 10844 to 10846of 2005 dated 13.6.2011, this Court has held that the PumpOperator is covered by the Minimum Wages Notification inG.O.Ms. No. 449, Labour and Employment Department dated6.6.1997 though the term "Pump Operator" is not usedtherein, the description "Pump Set Drivers" applies to"Pump Operator" and it has also been clarified by theCommissioner of Labour by Circular addressed to all the authorities concerned. In that context, this Court hasheld that the similar computation being ordered by theLabour Court was fully justified and does not call forinterference.

11. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions standallowed and the impugned order stands set aside. Therespective Claim Petitions are restored on the file of the1st Respondent with a direction to the 1st Respondent toproceed with the calculation of the amounts due to thePetitioners and pass orders accordingly. The said exerciseshall be undertaken within a period of three months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order and after duenotice to the respective Panchayat. Since the Petitionershave made a prima facie case in their favour and theirclaim is covered by the reasoning given by this Court inthe batch of Writ Petitions referred to above, the amountlying in deposit will be continued to be in deposit.Depending upon the outcome of the Labour Court order, thePetitioners can withdraw the amounts lying in deposit. Nocosts. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.