MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD. versus CHAND LAL SAHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 01-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MANGANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
CHAND! LAL SAHA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 1990 
[T.K. THOMMEN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Sections 2(h), 3( l)(a), 4 & 11. 
Manganese Mines-Workers-Minimum Wage-Monetary value of 
grain supplied at concessional rates and amount paid as actendance 
bonus t~ ·workers-Whether can be treated as wage in kind and 
deducted from the minimum wages. 
'Grain concession' and 'Attendance bonus'-Nature. of-Diffe- . 
rence between incentive bonus and Minimum wage explained. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33C(2): Labour Court_;_ 
Jurisdiction of-Application for recovery of deficit amount of minimum 
D 
wages-Whether barred by section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act,· 
1948. 
The Government of India by a notification issued under the 
Minimum ,Wages Act, ~948 fixed the minimum rates of wages 'payable 
'" 
to different categories of employees of the Managese Mines. The appel~ 
E 
lant Company was paying minimum wages to its workers. Besides it was 
also paying to its employees attendance bonus and was supplying grain · 
to them at concessional rates. Bnt the appellant was dedncting out of 
1 
their wages the monetary value of the grain concession" and the atten; 
dance· bonus .. The workers of the appell~t Company' working at , 
Nagpur (Maharashtra) and Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) filed applies· · F 
!ions under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the. 
Labour .Courts at Nagpur and.at Jabalpur for recovery of the defi~it 
amount of wages due to them from the appellant. The appellant 
opposed ·the applications on the ground that the. minimnin wage wa8 ~n ·· 
inclusive wage whicli included the cash value of grain conc~ssion and ' 
attendance bonns. 
' 
· 
" 
G 
'· The Labour Court, Nagpur, allowed the applications of lb~ workers · 
by holding that the monetary valne of the grain Sllpplied.~t concessibnal,,· 
rate or the amount paid as attendance bonus could not be counted 
towards the minimum wage .. But the Labour Conrt,. Jabalpur partly 
_;i-
all,oweit the applications of the workers and decided the issue regarding 
H 
533 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the supply of concessional grain against the workmen by holding that 
the appellant was entitled to add the cash value of the graln-ronces-
sional for computing the minimum wage. The workmen did not 
challenge the order of the Labour Court, Jabalpur but the appellant 
challenged the orders of both the Labonr Courts by fdlng writ petitions 
In the High Court of Bombay and Madhya Pradesh. Both the High 
B 
Courts dismissed the writ petitions. 
In appeals to this Court, it was contended on behillf of the appel-
lants; (I) that the notification fixlng!Dinimum·wage being all inclusive it 
would include the amount of bonus attendance and the monetary value 
of concessional grain; (Ii) since the grain concession and attendance 
bonus were benefits which could be computed in money they were 
C 
remuneration within the definition of 'wages' under section 2(h) of the 
Act; and (iii) in view of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under 
section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to proceed with the 
applications for recovery of deficit amount of minimum wages. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Section U(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 lays 
down that the minimum wages payable under the Act shall be paid in 
cash. Sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 11 are exceptions to the mandate 
E 
contained in section 11(1). Section 4(1)(iii) and section 4(2) have to be 
read with section 11 of the Act. Section 4(1)(iii) mentions only such 
"cash value of the concession" as has been authorised "wages in kind" 
under sub-6ection (3) of section 11 of the Act. Therefore, there cannot 
be a wage In kind unless there is a notification by the appropriate 
Government under section 11(3) of the Act. It Is only the appropriate 
F 
Government which can autltorise wages partly in kind, In the absence 
of any notification by the appropriate Govt. for the supply of essential 
commodities at concessional rates the cash value of such concessions 
cannot be treated as wage in kind and cannot be deducted from the 
minimum wages which have to be paid in cash under section 11(1) ofthe 
Act. In the instant case there being no notification by appropriate 
G 
Government under section 11(3) of the Act the appellant cannot take 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.