720 Labour and Industrial Laws

in the interest of the general public.

The appropriate Govermment has undoubtedly been given very wide

powers with regard to the procedure

for fixing of minimum wages. But it has
to take into consideration, before fixing of wages, the advice of the committee,
if one was appointed, or the representations on its proposals made by persons
who are likely to be affected by it. Consultations with advisory bodies have been
made obligatory on all occasions of revision of minimum wages. The provisions
in the Act constitute adequate safeguard against any hasty, arbitrary or
capricious decision by the appropriate Government. However, there is no
provision regarding review of the decision of the 'appropriate Government' but
that by itself cannot be taken to hold the provisions of the Act as unreasonable.
Therefore, the restrictions, though they interfered to some extent with the
freedom of trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution, are reasonable and imposed in the interest of the general public
and as such are protected by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
Salient features of the Act.-Some ofthe features are
(1) This Act provides for the fixation of: (a) minimum time rate of wages;
(b) a minimum piece rate; (c) a guaranteed time rate; and (d) an
overtime rate, for different occupations, localities or classes of work
and for adults, adolescents, children and apprentices.
(2) The minimum rate of wages under the Act may consist of : (a) a basic
rate of wages and a cost of living allowance; or (b) basic rate of wages
with or without the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the
concessions in respect of essential commodities supplied at
concessional rates; or (c) an all-inclusive rate.
(3) The Act requires that wages shall be paid in cash, although it
empowers the appropriate Government to authorise the payment of
minimum wages, either wholly or partly in kind in particular cases.
(4) It lays down that the cost of living allowance and the cash value of
concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at
concessional rates shall be computed by the competent authority at
certain interval. In case of undertakings controlled by the Union
Territories and the Central Goverment, the Director, Labour Bureau
is the competent authority.
(5) The Act empowers the appropriate Government to fix the number of
hours of work per day, to provide for a weekly holiday and the
payment of overtime wages in regard to any Scheduled employment
in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under
the Act.
(6) The establishments covered by this Act are required to maintain
registers and records in the prescribed manner;
(7) The Act also provides for appointment of Inspectors and authorities to
hear and decide claims arising out of payment of wages at less than
the minimum rates of wages or remuneration for days of rest or or

work done on such days or of overtime wages.

(8) The provision is also made in the Act for dealing with complaints
 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 721

made for violation of the provisions of the Act and for

penalties for offences committed under the Act. imposing
Section 1. Application of the Act--The Minimum
extends to the whole of India. It applies to the Wages Act, 1948
employments which are
enumerated in the Schedule of the Act and in certain cases may, in the discretion
of the appropriate Government, be extended to
any other employment.
It was held in Hindu Inter
College, Kandhla, Muzaffarnagar v. Prescribed
Authority (Minimum Wages Act, 1948) and Others, that the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 does not apply to teachers in private educational institution.
In Secretary, Padippu K.S. Sangam Ltd. v. C. Varghese,? respondent was an
employee of the appellant co-operative society. He claimed payment of
minimum wages under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. His claim was upheld
by the High Court in a writ appeal hence the employer preferred an appeal to
the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal the Supreme Court observed that the only question
here was whether the appellant co-operative
society was engaged in dairy
farming so as to fall within the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Schedule II. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not so
observed that mere activity of buying milk from its members and
engaged. I
would not constitute 'dairy farming' where there was no
distributing it
and no farming activity was carried on by the
rearing of milch cows
society.
Section 2. Interpretation
(a) "Adolescent" means a person who has
of age but has not completed his
completed his fourteenth year
eighteenth year.
(aa) "Adult" means a person who has completed his eighteenth year of
age.
(b)"Appropriate Government" means-
i) in relation to any Scheduled employment carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government or a railway administration or
in relation to mine, oil-field or major port, or any corporation
a
established by a Central Act, the Central Goverrment, and
(ii) in relation to any other Scheduled employment, the State
State
Government.
In Regional Labour Commissioner, Bangalore and others v. T.K.
and another' some workers were employed by the contractor in Varkey
and Co.
construction of
staff quarters for Railways. The
workers were being paid minimum wages at the
rates prescribed by the State Government, whereas the Labour Enforcement
Officer's view was that they should have been paid the rates
Central Government. A claim for the prescribed by the
which has been contested. It
diterence between the two rates was made
was held that the place where the employment is
carried on and for whose benefit the employment is carried on and
control the work connected with the employment is carried on under whose
are the
factors in finding out whether the appropriate deciding
Govermment is the Central
Government or State Government. In he instant case, the employment has taken
place in the place belonging to the
Railways and the employment or the work
1. (2005) II LU 169 (AlI.).
2. 2007 II LLU 544 (SC).
 734 Labour and Industrial Laws

(e) the region-cum-industry principles.

However in fixing fair wages the financial capacity of the employer and
the wages scale prevailing in the
comparable industries in the region are some
of the relevant considerations.' Minimum wages must be paid irrespective of the
extent of profits, the financial condition of the establishment or the availability
of workmen, on lower wages The minimum wages, is independent of the kind
of industry and applies to all alike, big or smal. It sets the lowest limit below
which wages cannot be allowed to sink in all humanity.
Section 5. Procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.-Section
5
lays dowm that in fixing minimum rates of wages respect of any scheduled
in
employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of
wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either
(a) appoint as many committees and sub-committees as it considers
necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in respect of such fixation
or revision, as the
case may be; or
(b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the
information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date
not less than two months from the date of the notification on which
the proposals will be taken into consideration.
After considering the advice of the committees appointed, and all
representations received by it before the date specified in the Gazette
notification, the appropriate Government may by notification in the official
Gazette, fix or revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of each scheduled

employment, which shall come into force after the expiry of 3 months unless
otherwise provided in the notification.
Where the appropriate Government proposes to revise the minimum rates
of wages by the mode specified in Section 5(1)06), the appropriate Govermment
shall consult the Advisory Board also.
If the Advisory Board approves the notification regarding revision ot
of the Board would
wages without discussing the objections raised, the action
be arbitrary because it amounts to non-application of mind in granting
approval.
The exercise of power to fix or revise the minimum wages under
in the
sub-section (2) of Section 5 is limited only to employments specified
schedule. Under Section 27 of the Act the appropriate Government may add any

employment to the schedule. The nature and extent of powers of the appropriate
Government under Section 27 and Section 5(2) is separate and distinct and what
can be done by the appropriate
Government in exercise of its power under
Section 5(2) of
Section 27 cannot be done by it in exercise of its powers under
the Act.
The power conferred upon the appropriate Government under Section 5(1)
does not offend
is neither arbitrary nor unguided. Therefore sub-section (1)
the
Article 14 of the Constitution." In the matter of fixing minimum wages,
1. Pu. Lud. v. The Worbmen, AlR 1969 SC 182.
Hydro (Esgineers)
v. Workren, AIR 1967 SC 1175.
2. Kamani Metals and Alloys Ld.
3. H.B. Verma v. Union of India, (1993)
I LU 39 (Delhi).
AlR
Mineral Industrial Association v. The Regional Labour Commissioner,
4. Madhya Pradesh
1950 SC 1068.
v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970
SC 2042.
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore
 735
economic capacity of the trade
industry is irrelevant, for, what alone is
or
germane, is, the wagerequired by the employees to survive. The fixation of
minimum wages depends on the
living in a place, the nature of the prevailing economic conditions, the cost of
work to be performed and the conditions in
which the work is performed. Where a
notification is issued the Goverrment
authorising the employer to deduct the sum mentioned by in the notification
towards the cost of free meals
the notification gives supplied to the workers by him, it was held that
only an option to the employer and does not impose an
obligation upon him.2 Supplying food is an amernity. The notification does not
mean fixing of minimum
wages in kind. The power of the Government to
prescribe minimum rates of
wages or to revise them does not include to
vary other terms of contract." power
In was held in
Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and another v.
Barytes Asbestos & Paints Ltd. that the notification fixing minimum Tiffin's
cannot be lightly interfered with in exercise wages
of writ jurisdiction by the High
Courts on the ground of some
or the
irregularities in the constitution of the committee
procedure adopted by the committee. Committee acts only as a
recommendatory body, and minimum wages are fixed only by the Government.
In a country where wages are
already minimal a notification fixing minimum
wages should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India except on the most substantial grounds. Action taken
welfare legislation to further the Directive
pursuant to a social
struck down on mere techanicalities.
Principles of State policy cannot be
In Muruga Home Industries v. Government
of Tamil Nadu & another
minimum wages of Beedi-workers were revised by the State Government by a
notification issued after consultation with the Advisory Board. It was held that
the notification fixing minimum wages should not be interfered with in writ
proceedings except on most substantial grounds. Advisory Board is well
balanced since representation is given to employers and employees. Work in
Beedi industry is unorganised sector and condition of work and wages of
beedi-workers are below subsistence level and minimum
wages fixed is fair and
just and not arbitrary.
In Mahendra Chandra State the Government
v.
by a notification concerning
motor transport employees fixed number of hours of work for normal working
at 9 hours. The working hours fixed by the Govermment were in excess of the
hours prescribed by Section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. The
notification was held as invalid. It was further held that the expression "and
unless such notification otherwise provides" in Section 5(2) of the Act can at best
be said to be "fairly capable of either
interpretation" and so it has to be
construed as prospective in nature because the notification issued in terms of
Section 5(2) would prejudicially affect vested rights, the
legality of past
1. Arbunda Bhuvan Tea Shop & others v. State of Maharashtra & others, (1992) I LU 807
(Bom).
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of
Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042.
Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants Association, Gondia v. State
SC 486. of Bombay, AIR 1962
4. (1985) 1 LU 412 (SC).
5. (1996) I LU 598 (Madras).
AIR 1971 Tri 32.
by the Government. No notice was issued to personnel officer of the Century
Flour Mills Ltd. on account of the Chairman's misapprehension that the person
who had earlier resigned was by name a member of the committee and in his
place the mill had to substitute another. It was held that this misapprehension
cannot obliterate the fact that one of the representatives of the employer was not
given an opportunity to participate in the meetings. The notification was bad
because the committee was not properly constituted and did not function in
accordance with Section 9 of the Act. Further, the legislature has attached
importance to the equality of representation to the employers and employees in
the Advisory Committee, when that equality is not available and the balance
sought to be maintained by the Legislature is disturbed, that will constitute a
disregard of Section 9.
Section 10. Correction of errors-The appropriate Government may at
any time, by notification in the official Gazette, correct clerical or arithmetical
mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of
wages under this Act
or error arising therein from
any accidental slip or omission. Every such
notification shall as soon as may be after it is issued be
Advisory Board for informatiorn.
placed before the
Section 11. Wages in kind.-The minimum wages payable under this Act
shall be paid in cash. Where it has been the custom to pay wages wholly or
partly in kinds, the appropriate Government being of the opinion that it is
necessary in the circumstances of the case may, by notification in the official
Gazette, authorise the payment of minimum wages either wholly or partly in
kind.
If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that provisions should be
made for the supply of essential commodities at concessional rates, it
may at by
notification in the official Gazette, authorise the provision of such supplies
concessional rates. The cash value of wages in kind and of concessions in
respect
of supplies of essential commodities at concessional rates shall be estimated in
the prescribed manner.
Section 12. Payment of minimum rates of wages.-Section 12 lays down
that where in respect of any scheduled
5 is in force, the employer shall
employment a notification under Section
pay to every employee engaged in a scheduled
employment under him, wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate o
wages fixed by such notlfication for that class of
without any deductions except as may be authorised employees in that employmen
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Provisions of Section 12 or ana
within such time
u
Act should not affect the
provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Section 13. Flxing hours of normal
working day, etc.-Section 15
provides that, in regard to any scheduled employment minimum rates or wa
in respect of which have been fixed under
this Act, the appropriate Govem
may-
(a) fix the number of hours of work which shall constitute
working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals; a
(b) provide for day of rest in every period of seven tall be
allowed to all days which sa and

employees or to any specified class of employees

for the payment of
remuneration in respect of such day or est;
(C) provide for payment for work on a day of at a rest not lessthan the
 Tne Minmum wages Act, T846

overtime rate.
provisions of sub-section (1) shall, in
According to Section 13(2) the
relation to the following classes of employees apply only to such extent and
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed
(a) employees engaged on urgent work, or in any emergency which could
not have been foreseen or prevented;
b) employees engaged in work in the nature of preparatory or
complementary work which must necessarily be carried on outside
the limits laid down for the general working in the employment
concerned;
(c)employees whose employment is essentially intermittent;
(d) employees engaged in any work which for technical reasons has to be
completed before the duty is over;
(e) employees engaged in a work which could not be carried on except
at times dependent on the irregular action of natural forces.
Employment of an employee is essentially intermittent when it is declared
to be so by the appropriate Government on the ground that the daily hours of
duty of the employee, or daily hours of duty as such for the
if there be no

employee, the hours of duty, normally include periods of inaction during which
the employee may be on duty but is not called upon to display either physical
activity or sustained attention.
Section 14. Overtime-Where an employee works on any day in excess
of the number of hours constituting a working day,
normal employer shallthe
pay him overtime. An employee entitled to overtime must be such whose
minimum rate of wage is fixed under this Act by the hour, by the day or by
such a longer wage period as may be prescribed. The overtime shall be payable
fixed under
for every hour or for part of an hour so worked in excess at the rate
time being in
this Act or under any law of the appropriate Government for the
force, whichever is higher.
of
Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation of the provisions are
those provisions
Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, in any case where
applicable.
Rule 25 of Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Rules provides for payment
of overtime at "double the ordinary rates of wages". In Y.A. Mamarde v. Authority
rate' used in the
under M.W. Act,' a question arose whether the phrase 'ordinary
a workman in fact ordinarily
said rule means double the remuneration which
fixed for him under the Act. It
receives or double the rate of minimum wages
for overtime work need not be
has been held that the "minimum rates of wages
fixed
confined to double the minimum wages fixed by the Act, but may justly be
a fact".
at double the wages ordinarily received by the workmen as
It was held in Municipal Council, Hatta v. Bhagat Singh; that section of the
Minimum Wages Act clearly provides for payment of overtime only to thosee
employees who are getting mnimum rate of wages under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948. It does not apply to those getting better wages in other statutory
rules. In the present case Municipal Council employees were receiving wages
under Municipal Rules which were much more than minimum wags

AIR 197n sc 121.

742 Labour and Industrial Laws

Therefore, they are not entitled to benefit of Section 14 (ie. overtime) merely
because employment under any Local Authority is listed as Item 6 in the
Schedule to the Act.
In State of Gujarat v. Savailal H. Shah, the respondent an employee of the
petiioner was getting better wages than the minimum under other statutory
rules. He claimed overtime wages under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 which was allowed by the Labour Court. The petitioner State challenged
the above order. Allowing the petition the High Court held that Section 14 of
the Act provided for payment of overtime wages only to those employees who
were getting minimum rate of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It
did not apply to those who were getting better wages under other statutory
rules.
In Executive Engineer (Training) C.P.w.D. v. Regional Labour Commissioner
and another,? respondent No. 2 was employed as chowkidar in Central P.W.D.
and was posted in C.P.W.D. Training Hostel. A Circular was issued by the
Govermment under Rule 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950
whereby chowkidars in the field offices of the CP.W.D. falling under the
scheduled employmert listed under the Act were declared entitled for overtime
allowance with effect from January 1, 1983. By an order of the Regional Labour
Commissioner, New Delhi issued in pursuance to the said Circular the
chowkidars posted in C.P.W.D. Training Hostel were entitled to overtime
allowance. This order was challenged by the Executive Engineer (Training)
C.P.W.D. Quashing the impugned order of the Regional Labour Commissioner
the High Court observed that the posting of second respondent chowkidar in
office
the C.P.w.D. Training Hostel did not fall within the meaning of a field
in
and would not thus be covered by the said Circular. The exception made out
of the Circular would only apply once the initial portion of it was
the latterpart
applicable.
v. Sushil Kumar and
In Director General of Works, C.P.W.D. and Another
Delhi High Court was whether an employee is
Others, the question before than the
entitled to overtime allowance in case he is getting wages higher
get Section 14 of the Act
of
minimum wages. The Court held that the provisions
to a workman are
where the wages being paid
would not be applicable only overtime
minimum wages fixed under the Act (including
otherwise in excess of overtime allowance
would be entitled to
allowance). The employees than the
were being paid wages higher
notwithstanding that the employees
minimum wages fixed
under the Act.
worker who works for less
than normal working
15. Wages of
Section minimum rate of wages has
15 provides, if an employee whose
day.-Section works on any day on which
he was
Act by the day
been fixed under this of hours oconstitutin8 a
a period less than the requisite number
employed for for a full normal
he shall be entitled to receive wages
normal working day,
working day unless and not by
work is caused by his unwilingness to work
(i) the failure to to provide him with work, and
the omission of the employer
 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 743

(i) in such other case and circumstances as may be prescribed.

Section 16. Wages for two or more classes of workAccording to
Section 16 where an employee does two or more classes of work to each of
which a different minimum rate of wages is applicable, the employer shall pay
to such employee in respect of the time respectively occupied in each such class
of work, wages at not less than the minimum rate in force in respect of each
such class.
Section 17. Minimum time-rate wages of piece work-Where an

employee is employed on piece work for which minimum rate and

time a
minimum piece rate has been fixed under this Act, the employer shall pay to
not
such employee wages at not less than the minimum time rate. A bare reading
of this section shows that piece rated workers are also govermed by the
provisions of this Act. This section requires the employer to pay piece rated
workmen wages at not less than the minimum time rate. Thus there is no escape
from the conclusion that piece rated workman is entitled to minimum rate of
wages.
Section 18. Maintenance of registers and records. Section 18 requires
that every employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such
the
particulars of employees employed by him, the work performed by them, and
and such other particulars
wages paid to them, the receipts given by them
in such form as may be prescribed.
Every emnployer shall keep exhibited, in such manner as may be prescribed,
in the factory, workshop or place where the employees in the scheduled
employment may be employed or in the case of out workers, in such factory,
notice in the
workshop or place as may be used for giving out-worker to them,
prescribed form containing prescribed particulars.
Under Section 18(3) the appropriate Government may, by rules made
under this Act, provide for the issue of wage books or wages slips to employees
in respect of which minimum rates of
employed in any scheduled employmentGovennment
wages have been fixed.
The appropriate may prescribe the manner
in which entries shall be made and authenticated in such wage books or wages
slips by the employer, or his agent.
Section 19. Inspectors.-Section19 of the Act authorises the appropriate
Government to appoint by notification in the official Gazette such persons as it
thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Act. The appropriate
Government shall also define the local limits within which the Inspectors shall
exercise their functions.
Powers of Inspectors-The exercise of power by the Inspector under
Section 19(2) is made subject to any rules made in this behalf. The powers of the
Inspector are as follows
(a) He may enter, at all reasonable hours, any premises or place where
employees are employed or work 1s given out to out-workers in any
scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages
have been fixed under this Act, for the purpose of examining
any
register, record of wages or notices required to be kept or exhibited
by or under this Act or Kules made thereunder and require the
1. Somiben Mathurabai Vasava v. M/s. Lalji Hakku Parmer Leather Works Co., (1984) I
LU 381 (Guj).
 744 Labour and Industrial Laws

production thereof for inspection. The inspector may also enter the
premises etc., with such assistants, being person in the service of the
Govermment or any local or other public authority, as he thinks fit.
(D) He may examine any person whom he finds in any such premises or
an employee to whom work is given out therein.
) He may require any person given outwork and any out-workers to
give any information, which is in his power to give, with respect of
the names and addresses of the person to, for and from whom the
work is given out or received, and with respect to the payments to
be made for the work.
(d) He may seize or take copiesof such
register, record of
wages or
or portions thereof as he may consider relevant in respect of an
notice
offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been
committed by an
employer.
(e) He may exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.
Every lnspector shall be deemed to be public servant within the meaning
of the Indian Penal Code. Section 19(4) lays doWn that
anyperson required to
produce any document or thing or to give any information by an Inspector shall
be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 175 and
Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code. Revenue officers
appointed as
Inspectors
are under the administrative control of Commissioner and Collector and they
have no powers to give relief under Section 20(2) but have large powers of
supervision and control under Section
19.
Section 20. Claims.-Section 20(1) empowers the appropriate
Government to appoint, by notification in the official Gazette, an Authority to
hear and decide for any specified area the following claims
() any claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of
wages; or
i) any claim in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest;
or
(ii) any claim in respect of payment of remuneration for work done on
such days under clause (b) or (c) or Section 13(1); or
(v) any. claim of wages at the overtime rate under Section 14, or
employees employed or paid in that area.
In Anand Oil Industries v. Labour Court, Hyderabad,it was held that Section
20(1) of the Act does not cover all claims in respect of minimum wages; it covers
only cases where there is a dispute as to the rate at which the minimum wages
are payable. When there is no dispute as to the rate of wages, but the dispute
is as to the quantum of wages to which a workman is entitled, it would not be
a matter falling under Section 20(1) of the Act and consequently a petition under
Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act could not be held barred.
Who can be appointed as authority.-The following may be appointed as
an Authority to decide any claims as aforesaid
(a) any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; or
(b) any officer of Central Govemment exercising functions as a Labour
Commissioner tor any region; or
 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 745

(C) any officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Labour
Commissioner; or
(d) any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as
Stipendiary Magistrate.
The expression "other officer with experience as a judge of a Civil Court"
means thatthe officer should be working or should have worked as presiding
judge of a Civil Court. He need not be appointed by name but by office only
Who can apply-Sub-section (2) provides that where an employee has any
claim as referred to in Section 20(1) the following may apply to the Authority
fora direction
a) the employee himself; or
b) any legal practitioner authorised in writing to act on his behalf; or
()any official of a registered Trade Union authorised in writing to act
on behalf of the employee; or
(d) any Inspector; or
(e)any person acting with the permission of the Authority.
The Minimum Wages Act cuts across the contract between the employer
and the employee. Any employee who feels aggrieved by the refusal of the
employer to pay the minimum wages fixed under the Act has the right to make
a complaint either by himself or through the preseribed agents to the Authority
mentioned in the Act.
In the Manager, Warrangal Branch, A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-op
Society, Warrangal v. The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Warrangal and
others an application was filed by one Krishnamurthy representing 6
workmen, claiming minimum wages as per the order of the Government of
Andhra Pradesh under Section 20(2) of this Act. The application was not signed
by. individual employee. The management raised objections regarding
maintainability of the application as well as on merits. It was held that it is the
duty of the Authority to examine and consider himself whether the application
was properly filed or not. It is not necessary that the objection regarding
maintainability should be raised by some one. If an application is not filed by
himself it can be filed by a legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade
union authorised in writing to act on behalf of the employee. t was, therefore,
for the Authority to find out whether Krishnamurthy was an official of the
union which was registered and he was authorised to represent them in writing.
Further the Authority must satisfy himself that the application was in
conformity with the reguirements of Section 20(2) of the Act. The condition
precedent to maintainability of an application under Section 20(2) is that the
employee should have a claim for payment. In the absence of specific claim for
compensation the Authority cannot arrogate to himself the duty of awarding
compensation to protect the interest of workmen. In this case the application
was neither maintainable nor there was a substantial claim.
In Commissioner, Thirukkazhukundaram Panchaya Union v. Authority
Appointed under the Minimum wages Act (Deputy Commissioner f Labour ll) and
others respondents 2 to 45 who were part time overhead tank operators in
1. The Malabart Tes Esate v. Sri Bhudhin Munda, AIR 1950 Tripura 16.
2. (1986)I LU 355 (AP).
3. (2003) I LLJ 352 (Mad.).
746 Labour and Industrial Laws

various panchayats claimed minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act as
they were being paid less than the minimum wages notified by the State
Government. The first respondent directed payment of minimum wages. The
present petition is against this order of the respondent. Allowing the petition the
High Court held that the application of the respondents who were part time
overhead tank operators in various Panchayats was made under Section 20(2) of
the Act without impleading their employer, namely, the Panchayats or the
Special Officer, as the case may be. Secondly, the notification under which the
minimum wages were claimed had no application to these respondents.
In State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Singh and another,; the respondent a
Govemment employee working in a scheduled employment and getting more
than minimum wages was allowed the overtime wages underSection 20(2) of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the prescribed authority which was
challenged by the State. The High Court held that the prescribed authority had
no jurisdiction to entertain the said claim, because the respondent who was a
Govemment employee working in a scheduled employment drawing more
claim benefit
wages than the minimum fixed by the Government could not
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
In Special Officer, T hanjavur Central Co-operative Bank Employees Co-operative
Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour and others, the
employees of the petitioner made applications for payment of minimum wages
to prescribed authority under Section 20(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
The prescribed authority ordered payment even though the application was
made after the expiry of six months from the date the wages became payable.
This order was challenged by the petitioner. The challenge was mainly on the
submitted beyond the six
ground that the orders were made on applications
months from the date on which the wages became payable. Dismissing the
petition the High Court held that the employees had shown more than sufficient
cause for the delay in making the application
which was duly considered by the
No. 1 and the DeputyCommissioner of Labour has rightly exercised
respondent
his discretion in favour of employees.
claim shall be presented
Application for claims-The application for any
minimum wages or other amount
within 6 months from the date on which the
be admitted after six months if the
become payable. But any application may the
satisfies the Authority that he
had sufficient cause for not making
applicant period. The exercise of power for the
application within the prescribed the period of limitation prescribed by
condonation of delay is not controlled by
the Authority functioning under the Minimum
the Limitation Act for a suit and to condone the delay in
Act has, in its discretion, plenary power
Wages of the Authority functioning under the Act
presentation of a claim.' The finding for condonation of delay, is a finding of
as to the existence of sufficient
cause

or the Supreme Court cannot interfere

with it." It was
fact, and the High Court
v. Ramgir? that the discretion vested
in the
held in Sarpanch Gram Panchayat must be exercised
to condone the delay, like other judicial discretion,
Authority
1. (2002) I LLU 158 (Raj.).
2. (2003) I LLU 1035 (Mad.). AR 1969 Mys 202
Town Municipal Council v. Chandra Datatraya Patil,
3. Chief Oicer,
 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 747

with vigilance and circumpection according to justice, common sense and sound
udgment. The words "sufficient cause" should receive liberal construction so as
to advance substantial justice when no regligence nor inaction nor want of bona
fides is imputable to the applicant.
Procedure for deciding claims.-Sub-section (3) provides that when any
application for claim is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and
the employer or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further
inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may without prejudice to any other
penalty to which the employee may be liable under this Act, direct
() in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the
minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount
by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount
actually paid together with the payment of such compensation as the
Authority may think fit. In no case any payment so directed should
exceed ten times the amount of such excess as stated above;
(ii) in any other case, the payment of-the amount due to the employee,
together with payment of such compensation as the Authority may
think fit, but not exceeding ten rupees; and
(1i) payment of such compensation in cases where the excess of the
amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the
disposal of the application.
Under Section 20(3) the Authority has to hear the applicant and the
heard. The Authority could
employer or give them an oPportunity of being of the
straight away give a direction as regards the alleged non-payment
minimum rates of wages and such compensation as it thinks fit not exceeding
ten times the amount of excess of the minimum wages over that which was
Though Section 20(3) provides for further inquiry but this has to be at
the
paid.
discretion of the Authority. The nature and scope of inquiry would depend on
the exact controversy raised in the case.' What the employee has to ask under
Section 20(3) is the payment of difference and it is for the Authority to find out
the difference and to order its payment.
In Warden-cum-Principal Students Hostel, Government Engineering College,
Salem v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under Minimum Wages Act),
Salem, the respondent Deputy Labour Commissioner granted by an order the

Students Hostel under the care of the petitioner. This order was challenged and
the High Court observed that catering establishments, such as the one in the
case of petitioner, which were attached to educational institutions were
exempted from the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Act, 1958. Considering
the application of Minimum Wages Act to "students Hostel" in the light of entry
hotel or restaurant' in Part I of Schedule to Minimum Wages Act employees
wherein were to be given minimum wages, the High Court observed that when
the Legislature had omitted "Students Hostel" in the Schedule no extended
meaning could be given to "Hotel" to include "Students Hostel". Hence the claim
of employees of Students Hostel for minimum wages was negatived.

1. Pabbolan Tea Compary Ltd. v. Depuy Comm. Lathinpur, AIR 1968 SC 271.
2. The Malabari Tea Estate v. Sri Budhin Munda, AIR 1959 Tripura 16.
3. (2002) I LLU 1011 (Mad.).
 748 Labour and Industrial Laws

under
In Priya Darsan Agarbatti v. State of M.P. & others' the award passed
October 22, 1986.
the Industrial Disputes Act was to remain in operation till
It
Minimum wages were not paid to theMinimum employee by the petitioner employer.
was held that Section 20(3)(i) of the Wages Act enables the Labour
minimum
Court to direct payment to employees of the amount by which the
amount actually paid together with the
wages payable to him exceed the
payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten
times the amount of such excess. Although the matter of compensation is
discretion has to be
entirely within the discretion of the Labour Court, the circumstances. In this
exercised on consideration of the entirety of the facts and
minimum wages would not be
case the petitioners were under the belief that
two months from the
payable either till October 22, 1986 or till the expiry of reduced to
date of notice of intention. Therefore the compensation awarded was
half by the High Court.
In Suja Issac, Kochi v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cochin-30 and Another,
while commenting upon Section 20(3) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the Kerala
the authority in case
High Court has held that Section 20(3)) of the Act enables
of payment of wages less than the minimum rates of wages to direct
to be paid, as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times
compensation
the amount of such excess. A reading of this clause shows that there is a
discretion in the authority to award the compensation or not and if it decides to
award compensation it is within its discretion to decide what amount it should
award as compensation. This discretion has to be exercised judicially. The
that an employer did not
purpose of making this provision is to see
contumaciously refuse to implement the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act,
as non payment of wages notified under the Act will result in forced labour
prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
Powers of the Authority.-Section 20(4) lays down that if the Authority
hearing any application under this section is satisfied that it was eitherbemalicious
or vexatios, it may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees paid to
the employer by the person presenting the application.
to Section
Recovery of amount under order of Authority.-According recovered
20(5) any amount directed to be paid by the Authority may be
were a fine
(a) if the Authority is a Magistrate, by the Authority as if it
imposed by the Authority as a Magistrate; or
whom the
(b) if the Authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate to
Authority makes application in this behalf, as if it were a fine
imposed by such Magistrate.
In view of Section 20(6) every direction of the authority under this section
shall be final. This merely means that the decision of the Authority cannot be
questioned under any provision of the Act. It does not exchude the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court when the challenge is as to the applicability of the Act to a
certain class of workers.
Section 20(7) lays down that the Authority under Section 20(1) has al the
of:
powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code for the purpose
1. (1995) N LU 1084 (MP).
2. 2015 1 U 73 er).
3. Pabdopan Tes Company Lu v. Depuy Commissioner Latkimpur, AIR 1968 SC 71
 The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 749
(a) taking evidence;
(6) enforcing the attendance of witnesses;
and
(c) compelling the production of documents.
Every such Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the
purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1898.
It was held in Ponnambalan v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act that the
liability of employer to pay minimum wages to the employee does not depend
whenever
upon the consent of the employer. The liability to pay is attracted
wages paid by the employer is found to be less than the minimumrates ot
not
wages. In such a case the Authority has power to award compensation
exceeding 10 times the amount of such excess to which the employee is entitled.
It was further held that even in a case where the claim made by the employee
is less than the amount he is entitled to under the Act, it would be open to the

Authority to stepin and award the amount to which he is entitled within the
limits of the Act.
inference
The language of the Minimum Wages Act clearly leads to the
for fixing rates of
that this Act is primarily concerned with laying down rules
a day of rest. It
minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment for work on
which provision has been
is not an Act for enforcement of paymernt of wages for
under
made in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Authority appointed
Section 20(1) decides claims which relates to rates of wages, rates for payment
of Section 20(1)
of work done on days of rest and overtime rates. The purpose
Act are
is to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages
and if any attempt is made
complied with by the employer in making payments are given the right to invoke the
to make payments at lower rates, the workmen
cannot be
aid of the Authority appointed under Section 20(1).: Section 20(1)
the workmen is for
invoked in respect of an application in which the claim of
for overtime work and work done
computation of their benefit at a certain rate
on off
weekly in relationwhere the employer contesting the application does not raise
days to the rates pleaded by the workman but merely alleges
a dispute
that no rates at all had been prescribed by the Government. The power to make
orders for payment of actual amount due to an employee under Section 20(3)
cannot be interpreted as providing that the jurisdiction to the Authority under
Section 20(1) has been given for the purposes of enforcement of payment of
amounts and not for the purpose of ensuring compliance by the enmployer with
the various rates fixed under the Act.
In Patel Iswerbhai Prahladbhai etc. v. Taluka Development Oicers and others,
the question in appeal was whether the tube-well operators of Taluk and District
Panchayats are entitled to the benefits of the Minimum Wages Act. It was held
the Supreme Court that there is no doubt that the tubewell operators are in
scheduled employment under the Panchayats. They, even though State
Govermment servants are employed in scheduled employment under the local
I LU 1195 (Kerala).
1.2. (1994)
Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presidng Oficer Labour Court, Hubli, AIR 1969 SC
1335.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
(19831 LLI 237 (SC