KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, HALDWANI ETC. ETC. versus M/S. INDIAN WOOD PRODUCTS LTD AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 23-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l 
-
-
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, HALDW ANI ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
MJS. INDIAN WOOD PRODUCTS LTD AND ANR. 
FEBRUAY 23, 1996 
[_e.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
B 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 
Sections 2(i) & 20(2)-Ex-employees of Amiy School-Grievance of 
non-payment of minimum wages f1Xed by the State Government from time to 
time-Authority under the Act allowing the claim-High Court upsetting the C 
orders on the ground that ex-employees disentitled to move a petition under 
S.20(2) of the Act-Held, the language employed is demonstrative of the 
legislative purpose-The intendment of the statute is furthered if an ex-
employee too is held entitled to seek relief under S.20(2) of the Act-Matter 
remitted back to the High Court for its decision on other points. 
D 
· Murngan Transp01ts v. P. Rathalaishnan & Ors., (1960) 19 FJR 355; 
Chacko v. Varkey and Others, (1961) 21 FJR 493; Labour Enforcement 
Officer (Central) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Cowt and Authmity under the 
Minimum Wages Act, Patna and Others, (1976) ILR Patna Series, 318 and 
At/mi Municipality v. Shetteppa Laxman Pattan and Ors., (1965) Volume 2 E 
LW 307, approved. 
Wakefield Estate v. P.L. Pemmal, 1958) 16 FJR 1, disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3896, 
3899, 3901, 3900, 3897 and 3898 of 1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.94, 4.10.94, 2.9.94, 4.10.94 
of the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No. 185 08/91 C. Misc. W.P. Nos. 
12855/84, 7474/89, 3368/92,, 11425/84 and 3369 of 1992. 
O.P. Rana and Pardeep Mishra for the Appellants. 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S. Khaitan and D.K. Garg for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard counsel for both the parties. 
1021 
G 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
The only question in this bat~h of appeals is ~here the transaction 
of sale of specified agricultural produce is between a trader and a trader, 
whether the purchasing trader is liable to pay the market fee in case where 
the selling trader does not collect it from him. This . question has to be 
answered with reference to the language of Section 17(iii)(b) which reads 
as under: 
"17. Powers of the Committee. - A Committee shall, for the 
purposes of this Act, have the power to --
(iii) levy and collect : 
(b) market fee, which shall be payable on transactions of sale of 
specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, 
being not less than one percentum and not more than two percen-
tum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State 
Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be 
realised in the following manner -
(1) if the produce is sold through a commission agent may 
realise the market fee from the purchaser and shall be liable 
to pay the same to the Committee; 
(2) if the produce is purchased directly by a trader from a 
producer the trader shall be liable to pay the same to the 
Committee; 
(3) if the produce is purchased by a trader from another 
trader the trader selling the produce may realise it from the 
purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to the 
Committee; and 
( 4) in any other case of sale of such produce, the purchaser 
shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee; 
(Provisos omitted as unnecessary)" 
A reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the liability to pay the 
H market fee is placed primarily upon the purchaser. Sub-clauses (1) and (4) 
-
-
j 
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMmv. INDIANWOOD PRODUCTS LID. 1023 
expressly say so. So does sub-clause (2). (Sub-clause (2) is also consistent A 
with the general policy underlying such enactments that the producer of 
specified agricultural produce is not to be made liable to pay the fee.) Now, 
coming to sub-clause (3), with which we are directly concerned herein, it 
says that "trader selling the produce may realise it from the purchaser and 
shall be liable to pay the market fee to the committee". On the basis of the B 
language of this sub-clause, it is contended by the purchasing dealers (who 
are respondents in these appeals) that the levy in such a case is upon the 
selling trader and that it is for him to pay the market fee. It is submitted 
that such selling trader may collect the fee from the purchaser or he may 
not. Whether the selling trader collects it from the purchaser or not, it is 
he who is liable to pay the market fee since the levy is upon him, it is C 
submitted. We a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.