LexY. A. MAMARDE AND ORS. versus AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT (SMALL CAUSES COURT) NAGPUR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
161- A Y. A. MAMARDE AND ORS. v. AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT" (SMALL CAUSES C:OURT) NAGPUR & ANR. April 12, 1972 B (C. A. VA!DIALJNGAM1 I. D. DUA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] c D E F G H Minimum Wages Act, 1948-S. 20-Whet~er the workmen entitled to double the wages with regard to overtime work done by rthem orr weekly reSt·days under Rule, 25 of the M.P. Minimum Wages Rules, 1951. Nine employees of the octroi department, 13 employee; of the water works department ant a time keeper of Nagpur Corporation applied under s. 20 of the Minimum Wages Act to the .Small Causes Court of Nagpur for ovtrtime wages at the rate of double the wages for the period th.ey worked beyond prescribed hours and holidays. The authority raised several issues but they -.ere decided against th" applicants and their applications were dismissed.· Being aggri~ved 1he said decision, four applications were plresented before the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution and the High Court also upheld the view of the authority, It was contended by the appellants that under Rule 25 of M.P. Mini- mum Wages Rules, r95l, they were entitled to overtime wages at, double the ordinary rate of wages for the period they worked beyond prescribed hours and holidays. Fdr their claims they relied on 2 minimum wage<> notifications-one dated ;21-2-51 .an4, the other dated 23-2-56. . ' ,) ' ,· : \:, '''··~ ., ;·: '':~' '> ' . On behalf of the appellants the : olily ·point can""5Sed before this Court wao the rejection Of their claim with regard to overtime work done by th>!m and work done on weekly ,rest days. The respondent contended that as the employees of the Corporation were paid higher wages than those fixed under ·the Act as minimum wages, the Act did not operate, 1111d the employer could not be compelled to pay higher wal[es.. Secondly, the second notification did not supersede the first notification-which only applied to unskilled labo·Jr-So as to cover all employee.•, skilled or unskilled. Further, the provis;on inquir- ing payment at double the ordinary rate of wages contained in Rule 25 must be read as the ordinary rate of minimum wages fixed, Allowing the appeal, HELD : (i) Rule 25 contemplates overtime work at double the rate of wages, which the worker actuall\' receives, including the casual re- quisite •.nd other advantages mentioned in the explanation. By using the phra'e "double the ordinary rate of wages", the rule making autho- rity intended that the worker should be the recipient of double the re- munerhticm which he, in fact, ordinarily receives, and not double the rate of minimum wages fixed for him under the Act. Had it been intended to provide for. mere)y double the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act. the· rule making authority could have so expressed its intention in clear and explicit \jlOrds. Th~ \\UTd "Ordinary" used ln rule 25 reflects the actuality rather than the wbrkers' minimum entitlement under the Act. [169A-Dl . (ii) The second notification was not applicable to all categories of labour a• wronBlv held bv the High Court. The second notification has to be read in the background of the first notification with the result that 162 SUPREME CQURT REPORTS [197 3 J 1 s.c.R. the later notification must also ·to be ·held to be confined to unskilled Jabour in so far as lt variCs or 'revises some. of the rates fixed in the earlier notification without extending its operational tuundo.ries by deleting the word "unskilled"' from the explanation "unskilled labour". [1700) Union of Jndia v. B. D. Rathi, A. I. R. 1963 Born. 54, referred to and ·distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1704 and 1937 of 1967. Appeals by special leave. from the judgment and order dated August 19, 1966 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Applications No. 853 and 941 of 1965 respectively. H. W. Dhabe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants (in .both the appeals) . W. S. Barlingay and P. C. Bhartari, lor. respondent No. 2 (in lt.>th the appeals) . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-. Dua, J.-These two appeals by special leave (C. As Nos. 1704 and 19.37 of 1967) are directed against th~ judgment of a Di.vision Bench of the Bombay High Court dated August 19, 1966- <lismissing four applications under Art. 227 of the. Constitution arising out of orders made by the Authority under t!·e Minimum Wages Act 11 of 1948 (hereinafte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.