LexSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. versus JAGGU & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.
v.
JAGGU & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 8094 of 2011)
JULY 05, 2019
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – ss.2(e), 2(i), 3, 7, 8 and 20(1) –
Scheme of the Act – Tripartite memorandum of settlement signed by
the appellant, contractor (through whom the service of the contract
labour was engaged) and the respondents-contract labour, under
which the contract labour was to be paid Rs.11.65/- per day over
and above the minimum wages notified by the appropriate
Government under the 1948 Act – Prohibition notification dated
17th March, 1993 issued by the appropriate Government, however,
contract labour engaged prior to the notification was allowed to
continue working in the captive mine of the appellant in Distt.
Jabalpur upto April 1996, when their service was terminated after
they proceeded on strike – No fresh agreement in the interregnum
period (17th March, 1993 to April, 1996) was executed – Contract
labour sought parity with the wages payable to the direct/regular
employees of the appellant – Allowed by the Prescribed Authority –
Confirmed by the High Court – Held: There are no pleadings on
record and the burden was on the respondents to establish that the
duties discharged by each of the employee was same/similar to that
of regular/direct employee appointed by the appellant – In absence
of the initial burden being discharged by the respondents, the onus
could not have been shifted on the appellant to counter the nature
of work discharged by each of the workmen – Scheme of the Act
clearly manifests that it is primarily concerned with fixing rates of
minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment of work on a day
of rest and is not intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment
of wages for which provision has been made in other laws such as
the 1936 Act and the 1947 Act– Further, after issuance of the
prohibition notification, the provisions of the CLRA Act or 1971
Rules framed thereunder would not be available to either of the
party to strengthen its claim – Minimum wages as prayed by the
[2019] 9 S.C.R. 65
65
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
respondents could be claimed independently under the 1948 Act,
which indisputedly was Rs. 11.65/- per day over the minimum wages
payable to each of the respondent (2040 employees) and was indeed
complied with by the appellants – Mere assertion of fact that the
contract labour which was allowed to continue after the prohibition
notification was performing same or similar kind of work is not
sufficient to endorse their entitlement of claiming wages notified
for direct/regular employees of the establishment applicable
universally to all the steel industries – Order of the prescribed
authority, confirmed by the High Court, set aside – Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – ss.7-9, 10(1), 12– Payment
of Wages Act,1936 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – CLRA Central
Rules, 1971 – rr.25(2)(iv) & (v), 25(2)(v)(a) – Constitution of India
– Arts. 12,14, 39(d) – Principle of equal pay for equal work.
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – s.3 – Fixation of minimum wages
under – Considerations for – Discussed.
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Enquiry under – Scope of –
Discussed.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – ss.7-
9, 10(1), 12 – Held: 1970 Act is a complete code in itself and regulate
the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith – Act does not provide for total abolition of
the contract labour, but only for its abolition in certain
circumstances, and to regulate the employment of contract labour
in the establishments registered u/s.7 and working through the
contractors holding licence u/s.12.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules,
1971 – r.25 – When not applicable – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are no pleadings on record and primarily
the burden was on the respondent applicants to establish that
the duties discharged by each of the employee was same or similar
to that of a regular/direct employee appointed/employed by the
establishment and this can be discerned from the facts pleaded
in the application filed by one Jaggu of which a reference has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
67
been made. In absence of the initial burden being discharged in
the first instance by the respondent employees, the onusExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.