LexPATEL ISHWERBHAI PRAHLADBHAI ETC. ETC. versus TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. A 8 c D F G H 322 PATEL ISHWERBHAI PRAHLADBHAI ETC. ETC. v. TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & OTHERS January 28, 1983 [Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, V.D. TuLZAPURKAR, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J Minimum Wages Act, 1948-Government servants employed in 'scheduled 6mployment' under local authorities - Whether entitled to benefits under the .4ct? The Minimum Wages Inspector of Mehsana District in Gujarat fifed applications before the Minimu;n Wages Authority praying for directions for payment of overtime wages to (01:.ir tubewell operators working in Taluka and District Panc~ayats on the ground that they had been made to work for more hours -than what was prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said Authority dismissed the applications holding that though employment in any District Panchayat or Taluka Pancbayat was •scheduled employment' as per s. 2 (g) of the Act, the tubewell operators concerned being Government servants in Panchayat Service w1~re not entit1ed to claim minimum wages under the Act. The revisions filed against the orders of the Authority wer~ dismissed by the High Court. Allowing the appeals, HELD : Section 3 of the Act provides for the appropriate government fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in an employment specified in Parts I and II of the Schedule. Section 2 (i) defines •employee' as meaning any person' who is employed for hire or reward to do any work in a 'scheduled employment'. Section 2(g) defines 'Scheduled employment' as im:aning an emplo)'rncnt specified in the Schedule and "Employment under any local authority" is included as item 6 of the schedule. [326 B·G] 'Employer' under s. 2 (eJ1 being "any person who employs whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employruent in respect of which minimum wages have been fixed under the Act" the Panchayats under which the tubcweII operators concerned are employed in scheduled I employment wouJd be 'employers' under the Act even though the tubeweJI ,_.._ operators are Government servanls, for, under sub-s. (2) of s. 102 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961, a Secretary of a Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat shall, subject to the control of the Sarpanch or Chairman, as the case may Jle, perform th~ <Jyti~~ me!'ti~ned in els. (a), (_b), (c) and (d) thereof and, ''1 - - P>,TEL ISHWERBHAf v. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (Varadarajan, J.) 323. under sub-s. (3) of that section, the other servants of the Panchayats shaU. A perform such functions and duties and exercise such powers under the Act · ~ as may be imposed or conferred on them by the Pancbayat"subject to rules, if any, made in that behalf. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the tubewell operators concerned in these appeals, even tbou.gh State Government servants, are employed in 'scheduled employment' under the local authority or authorities and are consequently entitled to minimum wages and'other benefits under the Act. [326 H, 327 A-DJ B · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No. 127-130. of 1975. Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 15th October, 1974 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision C Appln. Nos.,1434-1437 of 1973. V.M. Tarkunde, Naresh Kumar Sharma and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant. D.V. Patel, C.V. Subba Rao, Dy. Govt. Advocate, M.N. I) Shroff; G.N. Desai, · R.N. Poddar and R.H. Dheoar for the Respondent (State). P.H. Parekh for Respodents I and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. These appeals by special leave are dir.ected, against tbe judgment of the learned Chief Justice (B.1. Diwan) of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application Nos. 1434 to 1437 of 1973. Those Civil Revision Applications (hereinafter referred to as 'Revisions') were preferred against the judgment .of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Vijapur as the authority appointed under s. 20(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Yijapur Taluka in Civil Misc. Applications Nos. I and 2 of 1970 and 1 and ~of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'applicatio!ls'). The four Revisions raised a common question of law and were disposed of by a . common judgment. The applicatious before the Minimum Wages Authority were filed by the Gujarat Government Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Inspector for Mehsana district against the Talu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.