PALI DEVI AND ORS. versus CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 15-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PALI DEVI AND ORS. 
v. 
CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 
Ss.2(i), 20(2), 3(}-Employees of Anny School-<Jlievance before the 
C authority that the School had not paid them the minimum wages fu:ed by the 
State Government from time to time-Autholity allowing the applica-
tion-High Cowt setting aside that order on the ground that past employees 
are not included in the definition 'employee'-On appeal, held, these two 
provisions read with the Rules and Fann VI lean in favour of the view that 
both past and present employees are entitled to move in the matter. 
D 
Municipal Committee, Raikot v. Sham Lal Kaura & Ors. Vol. 28 
(1965-66); Mahiya v. State of H01yana & Ors., (1982) 1 SLR 26 and 
U:,akefield Estate v. P.L. Pernmal, (1958) 16 FJR, disapproved. 
Murngan Transpotts v. P Rathaklinshnan & Ors., (1960) 19 FJR 355; 
E Chacko v. Varkey and Ors., (1961) 21FJR493; Labour Enforcement Officer 
(Central) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Auth01ity under the Mini-
mum Wages Act, Patna and Ors., (1976) ILR-Pat. Series, 318 and Athni 
Municipality v. Shetteppa Laxman Patton and Ors., (1965) Vol. 2 LW 307, 
approved. 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3841-43 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.94 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 5691, 92/94 and 5877 of 1994. 
Aman Hingorani for M/s. Hingorani & Associates for the Appel-
lants. 
Ourdeep Singh.and Prem Malhotra, for the Respondents. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
752 
.. 
-
PALI DEVI v. CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITIEE 
753 
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the writ petition of A 
the respondent Managing Committee of the Army School, Jalandhar; 
upsetting the orders of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, 
on the premise that the appellants seeking relief were its ex-employees and 
not existing ones, and hence dis-entitled to move a petition under Section 
20(2) of the Act for appropriate relief. 
The employees voiced grievance before the Authority that the Army 
School had not paid them the minimum wages fixed by the State Govern-
ment from time to time, as per details given in the application, and 
therefore they are entitled to reliefs enumerated under Section 20(2) of the 
B 
above said Act. The said provision reads as under : 
C 
20(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to 
in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner 
trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any 
Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the 
Authority appointed under sub- section (1), may apply to such D 
Authority for a direction under sub-section (3) : 
Provided that every such application shall be presented within six 
months from the date on which the minimum wages (or other 
amount) became payable : 
Provided further that any application may be admitted after the 
said period of six months when the applicant satisfied the Authority 
that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within 
such period. 
The word 'employee' as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act is as follows : 
In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or 
content: 
E 
F 
"2(i) "employee" means any person who is employed for hire or 
reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in G 
a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of 
wages have been fixed;, and includes an out-worker to whom any 
articles or materials are given out by another person to be made 
up, cleaned, washed, altered,ornamented, finished, repaired, 
adapted or otherwise processes for sale for the purposes of the H 
A 
B 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
trade or busine..;s of that other person where the process is to be 
carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other 
premises not being premises under the control and management 
of that other person; and also includes an employee declared to 
be an employee by the appropriate Government; but does not 
include any member of the Armed Forces of the (Union)." 
The High Court relying on an earlier Division Bench decision of the 
Punjab High Court in Municipal Committee, Raikot v. Sham Lal Kaura & 
Ors., [Volume 28 (1965-66). Indian factories Journal 472) took the view that 
the word 'employee', defined in Section 2(1) of the Act did not include an 
C ex- emp

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