1. Since the sole petitioner raises common grievance of the workers in each of the respective writ petitions against rejection of their claim for payment of arrears of wages under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act including compensation in lieu of less payment of wages against the Respondent M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. (herein- after referred to as ''Company'') being aggrieved by the separate orders of the same date 22.09.2015 passed in the respective claim applications, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Petitioner in all these writ petitions claims to represent the interest of workers said to be working under the Respondent Company.
2. In WPL No. 5863/2015, 104 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 9/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Kujam of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
In WPL No. 5864/2015, 96 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 6/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Serengdag-B of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
In WPL No. 5866/2015, 20 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 8/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Serengdag-A of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
In WPL No. 5873/2015, 140 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 11/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Amtipani of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
In WPL No. 5884/2015, 49 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 10/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Jalim/Sanai of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
In WPL No. 5865/2015, 32 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 7/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Serengdag-B of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
In WPL No. 5881/2015, 67 persons had raised claim for payment of wages and compensation vide claim application no. 5/2013-R.L.C.(R) before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, stating that they have been denied wages @ Rs. 324/- per day, though they have worked in underground mines of Bauxite at Kujam of Respondent Company in the district of Gumla. Instead, they had been paid @ Rs. 182/- per day wages for above ground work.
4. All these persons claim minimum wages @ Rs. 324/- per days which is fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for schedule employment for mining of bauxite mine ''below ground''. They have claimed difference of wages as computed by them in separate claim application i.e. 10 times of compensation for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012.
5. In all these cases, Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cum Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, has come to a finding against the applicant on four issues inter-alia, (i) whether the mines in question is ''above ground'' or ''below ground'' mine, (ii) whether the applicants / claimants have been directly employed by the Respondent Company, (iii) whether they are still employed directly by the Respondent Company or not, and (iv) whether the delay in filing the claim application after one year of the period of limitation under the Minimum Wages Act, is fit to be condoned or not?
6. Learned Authority in exercise of its power under section 20(7) of the Act of 1948, issued notices to the contractors in the respective applications, who appeared and disputed the claim of the applicants in each of the respective applications. The Management on its part, had taken the plea of limitation as the respective applications were presented after the period of one year. They had contended that the Respondent Company has undertaken mining operation with the permission of the Director General, Mines Safety in respect of mineral bauxite in the State of Jharkhand through raising contracts. They also took the plea that none of the persons were directly employed by the Company and no proof of employment such as Form-B, Employment Card, Wage Slip, Attendance Register, etc were adduced. They also contended that mines in question are open cast mines operating for long with the permission of DGMS under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. But none of the applicants have substantiated their contention that they are working directly under the Respondent Company in ''below ground'' mine by any documentary proof such as, Wage Slip, Employment Card, Form-B, etc. No other documents were adduced by the applicants to substantiate their contention that the respective mines such as Kujam, Serengdang-A & B mines, etc. are below ground mines.
7. Learned Authority has, upon consideration of the first issue, taken note of the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 20.05.2009 i.e. a person working or employed in or in connection with a mine is said to be working or employed "below ground" if he is working or employed in an open cast working in which the depth of the excavation measured from its highest to its lowest point exceeds six meters, and held that none of the recognized union or registered trade union have ever disputed the status of the mine. Mines are operated with the permission of DGMS, Ranchi region and as such, applicants have failed to establish that it is not an open cast mine in which excavation is being done at the lowest point which exceeds 06 meter.
8. Learned Authority also came to a finding against the applicants on the second issue as no iota of proof in any manner was produced before it to substantiate their claim that they were employed directly under the Respondent Company. It also held that the Respondent Company had never claimed that they are still on the roll of the Company. If that be so, applicants have never approached the Authority under the law any time earlier for compensation or reinstatement, etc. Lastly, having held as above, on all the three issues, Learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi came to a finding that applicants have raised imaginary claim devoid of merit, therefore, there is no question of condonation of delay for preferring these applications. Applications were accordingly disallowed by the separate orders of the same date 22.09.2015, impugned in the respective writ petitions.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made serious efforts to dislodge the findings of the Authority. However, as is apparent, applicants have failed to produce any chit of documents to substantiate their claim of employment under the Respondent Company in any such mines. Even on the issue whether mines were ''above ground'' or ''below ground'' or not, applicants have failed to produce any material evidence, documentary or otherwise to dispel the findings of the Authority that these mines are open cast mines. Despite the fact that the applicants had not impleaded any of the contractors, the Authority exercising its power under section 20(7) of the Act of 1948, has noticed the contractor concerned in each of the cases who have appeared and strongly denied the case of the applicants for such wages @ Rs. 324/- per day applicable under the ''below ground'' mines.
10. Consideration of these relevant attendant material facts and the submissions of the parties, lead to the conclusion that none of the findings recorded by the Authority suffers from errors of fact or in law or from perversity calling for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. If the claims were wholly unsubstantiated by any cogent and relevant material evidence, Learned Authority was wholly justified in rejecting these claim applications by the impugned orders. Writ petitions are therefore devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
