 Facts of case

Fact 1: Two employees of a motor transport company filed a

complaint in the Labour Court.
Fact 2: One of the claims made by the employees is for arrears of
wages.
Fact 3: The other claim made by the employees is for the
difference between minimum wages and the wages actually paid
to them.
 Arguments
Worker’s point of view
 Legal obligations: The motor company has a legal
obligation to pay its workers in accordance with the
payment of wages and minimum wages regulations. If the
company has failed to do so, it is in breach of its legal
obligations.
 Breach of contract: The workers' employment contracts
may include provisions related to payment of wages and
minimum wages. If the company has breached these
contractual provisions, the workers may be entitled to
compensation.
 Unfair labour practices: The failure to pay minimum
wages or to pay wages on time may constitute unfair
labour practices. The workers may argue that the
company's conduct has violated their right to fair labour
practices, as guaranteed by the constitution.
 Economic hardship: The failure to receive proper wages
may have caused economic hardship for the workers. They
may have struggled to meet their basic needs, such as food,
shelter, and healthcare. This hardship may be taken into
account in determining the appropriate compensation for
the workers.
 Defense of motor companies
 Contractual Obligations: The company could argue that it
had a contractual agreement with its employees regarding
their wages and that it fulfilled its obligations as per the
terms of the contract.
  Economic Constraints: The company could argue that it is
facing financial difficulties due to the economic climate,
and this has affected its ability to pay its employees on
time. If this is the case, the company could provide
evidence of its financial situation to support its argument.
 Communication Gap: The company could argue that
there was a communication gap between the management
and the employees regarding the payment of wages. If the
employees were not informed about the delay in payment,
it could lead to confusion and misunderstanding, which
could have resulted in the legal action.
 Compliance with Labor Laws: The company could argue
that it has complied with all the relevant labor laws
regarding the payment of wages. If this is the case, the
company could provide evidence of its compliance to the
labor court.
 Court judgements
1. "M/s P.R. Transport Agency v. State of U.P. & Ors."
(1999) The court held that the Payment of Wages Act and
the Minimum Wages Act are meant to ensure that
employees receive their wages on time and at the
minimum rate prescribed by law, respectively. Further, the
Labour Court has the jurisdiction to decide disputes related
to these acts.
2. "State of Bombay vs Hospital Mazdoor Sabha" In this
case, the Supreme Court held that the Authority appointed
under the Payment of Wages Act has exclusive jurisdiction
to decide on claims arising out of the payment of wages.
3. "Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs The Management
of Dimakuchi Tea Estate" held that the Authority
appointed under the Minimum Wages Act has jurisdiction
to decide on claims arising out of payment of wages less
than the minimum wages fixed under the Act.

Summary
The workers may argue that the motor company's failure to pay
proper wages is a violation of their rights, both under the law and
under their employment contracts. The court may consider a
range of factors, including legal obligations, contractual
provisions, and economic hardship, in determining the
appropriate compensation for the workers.
It is important for the motor company to present its case in a
clear and concise manner to the labour court. The company
should provide evidence to support its arguments and
demonstrate its commitment to complying with the relevant
labour laws. Ultimately, the decision of the labor court will
depend on the merits of the case and the applicable laws.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, it has the
authority to adjudicate upon disputes between employers and
employees arising out of their relationship. This includes claims
for unpaid wages and minimum wages. Therefore, the Labour
Court has the jurisdiction to decide on these claims.
Opinion
According to me, it can be concluded that the Labour Court has
the jurisdiction to decide on the claims made by the employees
under the Payment of Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Act.