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 section Barlingay and P C Bhartari for respondent No 2 in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua J
These two appeals by special leave C
As Nos 1704 and 1937 of 1967 are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated August 19 1966 dismissing four applications under article 227 of the Constitution arising out of orders made by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act 11 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act in respect of claims made by employees of the City of Nagpur Corporation  hereinafter called the Corporation working in various Departments of the Corporation
On July 13 1964 Sitaram Madhorao Chaukidar and 9 other employees of the Octroi Department of the Corporation filed an application under section 20 of the Act in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur which was the Authority
appointed under the Act
The application was presented through the General Secretary of the Nagpur Corporation Employees  Association which was a registered trade union
The application is brief and therefore we consider it proper to reproduce its material parts in its own words The applicants above named beg to submit as under 1 That the applicants are employees working in non applicant No 1 Nagpur Corporation in Department of School  ors
The Minimum wages notification has been issued in respect of this industry by Government on 21 2 1951 and the minimum rates of wages are fixed 1 12 per day for eight hours
2 That the applicants have not been paid overtime wages for this period though they are entitled to get double the wages as they are required to work beyond prescribed hours and holidays
163 3 That the applicants have been required to work overtime for 30 65 8 and 51 hours every week during the period from 1 1 1964 to 30 6 1964 and total claim are shown in the annexure
The total amount claimed is Rs 867018
4 That the applicants estimate the value of the relief sought by them of the sum of Rs 867018
5 Applicants pray that a direction may be issued under section 3 of the Section 29 for a payment of the difference between the wages due according to mini mum rate of wages fixed by job and wages actually paid amount overtime wages Rs 867018
B Compensation amounts to Rs 10000
6 That demand has been made for this overseer claim from 1 1 1964 to 30 6 1964
 Earlier on June 26 1964 T R Khante Time keeper and 13 other employees of the Water Works Department of the Corporation had similarly applied under section 20 of the Act through B M Mahale General Secretary of the Nagpur Corporation Employees  Association
This application reads  The applicants above named bee to submit as under 1 That the applicants are employees working in non applicant No 1 Nagpur Corporation in Department of Water Works
The minimum wages notification has been issued in respect of this industry by Government on 21 2 1951 and the minimum rates of wages are fixed 1 12 per day for eight hours
2 That the applicants have not been paid overtime wages for this period though they are entitled to to get double the wages as they are required to work beyond prescribed hours and holidays
3 That the applicants have been required to work overtime for 8 hours every week during the period from 1 8 63 to 31 1 64 and the total claim are shown in the annexure
The total amount claimed is Rs 198748
4 That the applicants estimate the value of the relief sought by them of the sum of Rs 104748
5 Applicants pray that direction may be issued under section 3 of the section 29 for a payment of 164 the difference between the wages due according to the minimum rate of wages fixed by the job and wages actually paid amount overtime wages Rs 104748
6 That compensation amounts to Rs 14000
7 That demand has been made for this claim from 1 8 63 to 31 8 64
 On November 10 1964 some preliminary objections raised by the Corporation were disallowed by the Authority and the applications were directed to be tried on the merits
On February 17 1965 the Authority made an order on the following four issues which arose out of the claims made by the employees  1
Whether the applicants employed as a time keeper wireman and lineman belong to the category of unskilled workers  2
Whether the applicants who belong to the category of skilled or semi skilled labour can apply under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act  3
Whether the applicants have worked on weekly days of rest Sundays  a If so whether they are entitled to wages for work done on the weekly days of rest  4
Whether the Chowkidars and Motor drivers have worked in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day  a If so to what wages for overtime work are they entitled Under issue No 1 the wireman was held to be a skilled worker and the time keeper and lineman semi skilled disagreeing with their contentions that they were unskilled workers
Under issue No 2 the Authority held that the second notification of 1956 only provided for the minimum rates of wages of unskilled labour including casual labour in
the employment of the City of Nagpur Corporation
The applicants mentioned in issue No 2 who had worked on weekly days of rest ie Sundays were accordingly held disentitled to claim wages for work done on those days in the absence of any provision made by the State Government under section 13 1 c of the Act
Rule 25 of the MP Minimum Wages Rules was held not to provide for payment for work on a day of rest envisaged by section 13 1  c of the Act
Though in view of this decision under issue No 2 issue No 3 was held not to survive still a decision on issue No 3 was also recorded the details of which 165 are not necessary to mention
Under issue No 3 a in the absence of a provision by the State Government under section 1 3 1 c of the Act for payment for work done on weekly days of rest the applicants were held disentiled to claim payment under the Act
Issue No 4 and 4a were decided against the chowkidars and the motor driver concerned
All the four applications were accordingly dismissed with costs
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Authority four special civil applications were presented in the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench under article 227 of the Constitution
The High Court disagreed with the view of the Authority on the interpretation of the second notification and held that the second notification was intended to apply to all employees and was not confined only to unskilled workmen as was the case with the notification of 1951
It however upheld the view of the Authority that ordinary rate of wages contemplated by r 25 means ordinary minimum rate of wages considering this view to be in accordance with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the Union of India vs B D Rathi1
On behalf of the appellants the only pointcanvassed in these two appeals arises out of the rejection of their claim with regard to overtime work done by them and work done by them on weekly rest days
On behalf of the respondents however it was contended that the High Court was wrong in the construction placed by it on the notification of 1956
Minimum Wages were fixed by the Government by means of a notification under section 5 of the Act on February 21 1951
According to this notification the Government fixed minimum rates of wages for unskilled labour including casual labour in respect of scheduled employments mentioned in the schedule in that notification
The item which concerns us is item No 2 which reads as employment under any Local Authority
Various rates were fixed for certain categories of employees against this item
This notification so far as relevant reads  Nagpur the 21st February 1951
No 848 1758 XXIII of 1950 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 2 of section 5 of the XI of 1948 the State Government are pleased to fix the following minimum rates of wages for unskilled labour including casual labour in respect of the scheduled employments as mentioned in the schedule below the same having been previously published as inquired by clause b of sub section 1 of 1 AIR 1963 Bom
166 the said section and further to direct that they shall come into force at once Schedule of the Minimum rates of Wages Serial No and name of Schedule employment  Minimum rates of wages for unskilled labour including casual labour 2
Employment under any local authority Re 12 per day for adult female labour at all other centres
Re 1  Per day for adult male at Nagpur town and in Bhandara and Balaghat Districts Re 14 in Wardha Buildara Akola Nimar Hoshangabad and Nagpur districts including Nagpur town
13 in Jabalpur Katni and Sagar towns and places within 10 miles radius of these towns  Re 12 in Amravati Yeotamal Betul and chanda Districts
In this notification minimum wages in respect of some other categories of employees
which do not concern us were also fixed
On February 23 1956 the Government issued the following notification fixing revised minimum rates of wages in supersession of those fixed under the notification of 1951  No 566 451 XXIII
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause b of subsection 1 of section 3 read with sub section 2 of section 10 of the I of 1948 and after consulting the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Board as required by sub section 1 of section 5 thereof the State Government are pleased to revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of the scheduled employment as mentioned in schedule below in supersession of those fixed under this department notification No 484 1758 XXIII of 1950 dated the 21st February 1951 and to further direct that the minimum rates of wages so revised shall come into force at once SCHEDULE Name if scheduled employment Employment under any local authority
Minimum rates of wages  Re
12 per day for adult male and Rs 12 for adult female labour at Nagpur Jabalpur and Akola
14 per day for adult male and Re
9 for adult female labour in all other centres
167 The above rates are inclusive of dearness allowance or compensatory cost of living allowance and are subject to reduction on account of concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rates supplied by the employer when so authorised under section II of the said Act
 As observed earlier the respondents raised the question that
second notification did not supersede the earlier notification as to take within its fold all employees as held by the High Court but it was only confined to unskilled labour including casual labour the minimum rates of whose wages were determined under the earlier notification of 1951
To this aspect we will revert later
The point strenuously canvassed on behalf of the appellants
relates to the construction to be placed on r 25 of the M P Minimum Wages Rules 1951 made under section 30 of the Act
That rule provides for extra wages for overtime and reads  25
Extra wages for overtime  When a worker works in an employment for more than nine hours on any day or for more than fifty four hours in an week he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages a in the case of employment in agriculture at one and a half time the ordinary rate of wages  b in the case of any other scheduled employment at double the ordinary rate of wages
Explanation
The expression ordinary rate of wages  means the basic wage plus such allowances including the cash equivalent of the advantages accruing through the concessional sale to the person employed of food grains and other articles as the person employed is for the time being entitled to but does not include bonus
2 A resister showing overtime payments shall be kept in Form IV
3 Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to affect the provisions of the 
 It is common ground between the parties that  Sunday has been declared to be a day of rest and the normal working hours per day are 9 hours a day or 54 hours a week
According to Shri Dhabe the appellants  learned counsel the words at double the ordinary rate of wages used in cl
b of r 25 mean double the rate of wages which are actually being paid to the employees concerned and not double the rate of wages fixed under the Act as minimum wages whereas according to Dr Barlingay learned counsel for the respondent the Act is only concerned with providing 168 for minimum wages and if an employee is being paid more than minimum wages so provided the Act does not operate and the employer cannot be compelled to pay higher wages
The em ployees of the corporation are already being paid much higher wages than those fixed under the Act as minimum wages and therefore so contended Dr Barlingay there is no legal obligation on the employer to pay higher wages
The provision requiring payment at double the ordinary rate of wages contained in r 25 must according to the respondent s argument be read as the ordinary rate of minimum wages fixed
 Let us first deal with this question
The Act which was enacted in 1948 has its roots in the recommendation adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1928
The object of the Act as stated in the preamble is to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments and this seems to us to be clearly directed against exploitation of the ignorant less organised and less privileged members of the society by the capitalist class
This anxiety on the part of the society for improving the general economic condition of some of its less favoured members appears to be in supersession of the old principle of absolute freedom of contract and the doctrine of laissez faire and in recognition of the new principles of social welfare and common good
Prior to our Constitution this principle was advocated by the movement for liberal employment in civilised countries and the Act which is a pre Constitution measure was the offspring of that movement
Under our present Constitution the State is now expressly directed to endeavour to secure to all workers whether agricultural industrial or otherwise not only bare physical subsistence but a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure
This Directive Principle of State Policy being conducive to the general interest of the public and therefore to the healthy progress of the nation as a whole merely lays down the foundation for appropriate social structure in which the labour will find its place of dignity legitimately due to it in lieu of its contribution to the progress of national economic prosperity
The Act has since its enactment been amended on several occasions apparently to make it more and more effective in achieving its object which has since secured more firm support from the Constitution
The present rules under section 30 it may be pointed out were made in October 1950 when the State was under a duty to apply the Directive Principles in making laws
No doubt the Act according to its preamble was enacted to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages but that does not necessarily mean that the language of r 25 should not be construed according to its ordinary plain meaning provided of course such construction is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and there is no other compelling reason for adopting a different construction
A preamble though a key to open the mind of the Legislature cannot be 169 used to control or qualify the precise and unambiguous language of the enactment
It is only in case of doubt or ambiguity that recourse may be had to the preamble to ascertain the reason for the enactment in order to discover the true legislative intendment
By using the phrase double the ordinary rate of wages the rule making authority seems to us to have intended that the worker should be the recipient of double the remuneration 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 merely double the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act the rulemaking authority could have so expressed its intention in clear and explicit words like double the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act
This intendment would certainly have been stated in the explanation added to r 25 1  in which the expression ordinary rate of wages has been explained
The word ordinary used in r 25 reflects the actuality rather than the worker s minimum entitlement under the Act
To accept Dr Barlingay s suggestion would virtually amount to recasting this phrase in r 25 for which we find no justification
This rule calls for practical construction which should
ensure to the worker an actual increase in the wages which come into his hands for his use and not increase calculated in terms of the amount assured to him as a minimum wage under the Act
The interpretation suggested on behalf of the respondents would have the effect of depriving most of the workers who are actually getting more than the minimum wages fixed under the Act of the full benefit of the plain language of r 25 and in case those workers are actually getting more than or equal to double the minimum wages fixed this provision would be of no benefit at all
This construction not only creates a mere illusory benefit but would also deprive the workers of all inducement to willingly undertake overtime work with the result that it would to that extent fail to advance and promote the cause of increased production
We are therefore clearly of the view that r 25 contemplates for overtime work double the rate of wages which the worker actually receives including the casual requisites and other advantages mentioned in the explanation
This rate in our opinion is intended to be the minimum rate for wages for overtime work
The extra strain on the health of the worker for doing overtime work may well have weighed with the rule making authority to assure to the worker as minimum wages double the ordinary wage received by him so as to enable him to maintain proper standard of health and stamina
Nothing rational or convincing was said at the bar why fixing the minimum wages for overtime work at double the rate of wages actually received by the workmen should be considered to be outside the purpose and object of the Act
Keeping in view the overall purpose and object of the Act and viewing it harmoniously with the general scheme of industrial legislation in the country in the background
of the Directive Principles contained in our
1208SupCI72 170 Constitution the minimum rates of wages for overtime work need not as a matter of law be confined to double the minmium wages fixed but may justly be fixed at double the wages ordinarily received by that workmen as a fact
The Bombay High Court has no doubt held in Union of India vs B D Rathi1 that or dinary rate of wages in r 25 means the minimum rate for normal work fixed under the Act
The learned Judges sought support for this view from section 14 of the Act and r 5 of the Railway Servants Hours of Employment Rules 1951
The workers there were employees of the Central Railway
With all respect we are unable to agree with the approach of the Bombay High Court
Section 14 of the Act merely lays down that when the employee whose minimum rate of wages is fixed by a prescribed wage period works in excess of that period the employer shall pay him for the period so worked in excess at the overtime rate fixed under the Act
This section does not militate against the view taken by us
Nor does a provision like r 5 of the Railway Rules which merely provides for 54 hours employment in a week on the average in any month go against our view
The question is not so much of minimum rate as contrasted with the contract rate of wages as it is of how much actual benefit in the form of receipt of wages has been intended to be assured to the workman for doing overtime work so as to provide adequate inducement to them willingly to do overtime work for increasing production in a peaceful atmosphere in the industry
The problem demands a liberal and rational approach rather than a doctrinaire or technical legalistic approach
The contract rate is not being touched by holding that r 25 contemplates double the rate of wages which actually come into the workman s hands any more than it is touched by fixing the minimum rate of wages under sections 3 4 and 5 of the Act
The decision of the Mysore High Court in Municipal Borough BiJapur vs Gundawan MN  ors2 and of the Madras High Court in Chairman of the Madras Port Trust vs Claims Authority  ors
3 also take the same view as the Bombay High Court does
We need not therefore deal with them separately
Coming now to the notifications in our view the notification dated February 23 1956 has to be read in the background of the notification dated February 21 1951 with the result that the later notification must also be held to be confined to unskilled labour
It is no doubt true that the notification of 1951 dealt with several categories of employees
But that in our opinion does not militate against the construction that the
second notification has only to be adjusted with and fitted into the first notification in so far as it varies or revises some of the rates fixed in the earlier notification without extending its operational boundaries by deleting the word unskilled from the expression unskilled labour
The 1 AIR 1963 Bom
2 AIR 1965 Mys 317
3 AIR 1957 Mad 69 171 High Court was therefore not right in holding the second notification to be applicable to all categories of labour
The result therefore is that both the appeals are allowed and the case is sent back to the Authority under the for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above
Dr Barlingay undoubtedly desired us to go into various claims of the employees but in our view it would be more in the interest of justice that the matter is remitted back to the Authority for a fresh decision
The appellants would get their costs in this Court
SN Appeals allowed


Summary:
Nine employees of the octroi department 13 employees of the water works
department and a time keeper of Nagpur Corporation applied under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act to the Small Causes Court of Nagpur for overtime wages at the rate of double the wages for the period they worked beyond prescribed hours and holidays
The authority raised several issues but they were decided against the applicants and their applications were dismissed
Being aggrieved the said decision four applications were presented before the High Court under article 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 MP Minimum Wages Rules 11951 they were entitled to overtime wages at double the ordinary rate of wages for the period they worked beyond prescribed hours and holidays
For their claims they relied on 2 minimum wages notification one dated 21 2 51 and the other dated 23 2 56
On behalf of the appellants the only point canvassed before this Court was the rejection of their claim with regard to overtime work done by them 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 and the employer could not be compelled to pay higher wages
Secondly the second notification did not supersede the first notification which only applied to unskilled labour as to cover all employees skilled or unskilled
Further the provision inquiring 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 actually receives including the casual requisite and other advantages mentioned in the explanation
By using the phrase double the ordinary rate of wages the rule making authority intended that the worker should be the recipient of double the remuneration 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 merely double the minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act the rule making authority could have so expressed its intention in clear and explicit words
The word Ordinary used in rule 25 reflects the actuality rather than the workers  minimum entitlement under the Act
169A D ii The second notification was not applicable to all categories of labour as wrongly held by the High Court
The second notification has to be read in the background of the first notification with the result that 162 the later notification must also to be held to be confined to unskilled labour in so far as it varies revises some of the rates fixed in the earlier notification without extending its operational boundaries by deleting the word unskilled from the explanation unskilled labour
170G Union of India v B D Rathi A
I R 
1963 Bom 54 referred to and distinguished