LexHINDUSTAN LEVER AND ORS. versus HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HINDUSTAN LEVER AND ORS. v. HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 B (K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) Labour Law: The Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House-Rent Allowance Act, C 1983 Ss. 4,13. Notification No. BRA 3191/992/LAB dated 9,10.1992- Workmen-House rent allowance-Entitlement to-Employer's liability to pay house rent allowance to each workman at a specific rate-Exemption- Notification exempting industries areawise in relation to their workmen on income basis-Held, classification of Workmen on basis of income and clas- D sification of industries areawise not pennissible under the Act. The Government of Maharashtra purporting to exercise powers under s.13 of the Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Al- lowance Act, 1983 issued a Notification dated 9.10.1992 directing that with effect from 1.1.1991 the provisions of the Act would not apply to the E factories/establishments situated in certain Zones/areas in respect of their workmen drawing wages as mentioned in the Notification. Consequently house rent allowance of same categories of workmen of the companies situated in the Zones/Areas concerned was reduced below the minimum payable under the Act. The respondent-employees Unions filed writ peti- F G tions before the High Court challenging validity of the Notification. The High Court quashed the Notification holding the same as invalid and unenforceable and directed the companies concerned to refund the amount recovered from the workmen on the basis of the notification. The companies filed the special leave petitions before this Court. The petitioners-companies before this Court contended that the Notification was issued in accordance with s.13(1) of the Act which em- powered the Government to exempt any specific factory or establishment froin application of the Act, for the reasons mentioned therein; that in the Notification the classification made on the basis of wages of the workmen H was reasonable and permissible under s.13 and in deciding the validity of ~40 H. LEVER v. MAZ .. SABHA 541 the Notification the substance of the Notification as a whole should be A considered. Dismissing the special leave petitions, this Court HELD : 1. The classification of workers. on the basis of the income and the classification of the industries area-wise are not permissible under B s.13 of the Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983. The Notification under challenge is ultra vires of the Act, void and unenforceable and the High Court was right in quashing the same. (549-H, 549-A, 549-G] Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Distt. v. Security C & Personnel Service Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1987) 3 SCC 413, distinguished. 2. The basic object underlying the Act is that every workman should be paid house-rent allowance as provided in s.4. Section 4 which is the soul of the Act, lays down the fundamental structure, namely, that workers should be paid house-rent allowance and the establishments, factories or D the units which under certain circumstances would be eligible for exemp- tion under Section 13. Section 4 is the measure of the liability which operates on the factories or establishments which are units and the benefit should go to all workmen in the unit, and makes every employer respon- sible to pay monthly house-rent allowance to every workman which shall not be less than 5% of the wages payable subject to a minimum of Rs. 20 whichever is higher. The Section does not lay down any upper limit regarding the entitlement of the house-rent allowance. However high the wages may be, an employer has to pay it @ 5%. I:ikewise, after require- ments of Section 13 being satisfied, the individual unit or units, as a whole can be exempted. (546-G-H] E F 3.1. The exemption contemplated under s.13 can be granted to any specified factory or establishment or to any class of factories or estab- lishments in any industry, and not to one class of employees thereby· differently treating another class of employees in the same factory. The G section does not speak of the class of workers or employees. The emphasis is on the factories or establishments in an industry and not on the workmen or employees. (547-B] 3.2. Before granting the exemption, the Government must be satis- fied that it is just and proper to do so in public interest or for any special H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A reasons hav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.