THE PABBOJAN TEA CO. LTD., ETC. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAKHIMPUR, ETC.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 18-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE PABBOJAN TEA CO. LTD., ETC. 
v. 
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAKHIMPUR, ETC. 
August 18, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., AND G. K. MITTER, J.) 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), s. 20-0rders of Auth<>-
Tity-Civi! Court's ;urisdiction, if barred-Lettera Challan Wor-
kers, if "ordinary umkilled labour". 
A 
B 
By a notification under the Minimum Wages Act minimum wages 
were fixed for 'ordinary unskilled labour' in certain Tea Plan-
C 
tations in Assam. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner Issued noti-
ces to the appellants that a number of employees were not paid in ac-
cordance with the prescribed rate, and required them to pay the 
outstanding wages with requisite amount of delayed compensation 
to the employees in conformity with s. 20(3) of the Act. The appel-
lants denied the liability stating that these employees were Lettera 
Challan-workers who were incapable of performing a full normal 
working day's work, so they were 'not ordinary unskilled labour'. 
The authority did not hold any enquiry or receive any evidence 
D 
beyond meeting the managers of the appellants where the Govern-
ment Labour Officer was present and it held that in the absence of 
an order of exemption under s. 26, Lettera Challan Labour (in spite 
of the amount of work performed) was to be treated as ordinary 
labour. The appellants filed civil suits which the Subordinate Judge 
dismissed holding that under the Minimum Wages Act the orders 
of the Authority were final and su\ts were barred. The High Court 
upheld the decision of the Subordinate Judge. 
Held: The appeals must be allowed. 
E 
Determination of the question whether the jurisdiction of civil 
courts is excluded or not depends on the terms of the particular 
statute under construction. Exclusion of jurisdiction is n'bt to be 
readily inferred but such exclusion must either be explicitly expres-
sed or clearly implied. On an analysis of the provisions of the Act 
under consideration, it jg clear that although the Act provides that 
it is the duty of the authority to give proper hearing to the parties 
F 
allowing them to tender such evidence as they think proper before 
making an order which may have far-reaching consequences and 
which is final under s. 20(6) of the Act, the Act is not a complete 
Code, as there no provision for appeal or revision from the direction 
of the authority under s. 20(3); nor is any further scrutiny provided 
by any higher authority against th" imposition of penalty. The Act 
in terms does not bar the employer from instituting a suit when his 
claim is that he has been called upon to pay wages and compensation 
to persons who are not governed by the notification under the Act. 
G 
In such circumstances it is impossible to hold that the legislature 
meant to exclude the jurisdiction of civil court. [265B; 266E-F; 271E; 
271H-272H] 
.. 
SecretaT1} of State v. Mask & Co. 67 I.A. 222. Wol,,erhampton 
New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford, [1859] 6 C.B. (N.SJ 336. Pvx 
Granite Co Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Gol>ernment [1960] 
AC. 260, Raleiah Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governar General in Coun-
B 
di, 74 I A 50, Firm and llluri Subba1111a Chetty & Sons v. The State 
('ff Andhra, Pradesh [1964] 1 S.C.R 752, Kala Bhandar v. Municipal 
200 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
B 
PABBOJAN TEA CO. V. DY. COMMR., LAKHIMPUR (Mitter, J.) 
261 
Committee, [1965) 3 S.C.R. 499, Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay, 
[1966) 1 S.C.R. 64, K. S. Venkataraman & Co. v. State of Madras, 
[1966) 2 S.C.R. 229 and Firm Radha Kishan (deceased) represented 
by Hari Kishoo v. Ad~nistrator, Muntcipa! Committee, Ludhiana, 
[1964) 2 S.C.R 273, referred to. 
"Lettera Challan" workers do not fall within the expression 
"Ordinary unskilled workers" which means such unskilled W?rkers 
as work for the prescribed period of a fuU day. On the evidence 
adduced it is clear that the "lettera challan" labour only works for 
half the day and is unwilling to work for the prescribed period of 
fu\l day. Such a case is covered by the proviso to s. 15 a.nd such 
labour is not entitled to wages for a full normal workmg day. 
[272F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 288-291 
of 1966. 
' 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 7, 1962 of the Assam High Court in First Appeals Nos. 
16-19 of 1967. 
P. K. Goswami a.nd R. Gopalakri.~hnan, for the appellants 
(in all the appeals). 
H. R. Gokha/e, Naunit Lal and B. P. Singh, for respondent 
No. 1 (in all the appeals). 
The J

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