IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2922 of 2003 1.STATE BANK OF INDIA through the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Purnia 2.Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Purnia 3.The Chief Manager (Office Administration) State Bank Of India, Zonal Office, Purnia 4.The Chief Manager (Personnel) State Bank of India Zonal Office, Purnia 5.Bank’s Medical Officer, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Purnia----------------------petitioners Versus 1.SHRI BASUKINATH DAS son of Late Raj Kumar Das, Resident of Mohalla Sashtri Nagar, Sipahitola, P.S. K.Hat, P.O. & District Purnia 2.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Mauryalok Complex, Patna 3.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Purnia-respondents ----------- For the petitioner Bank:M/S Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha Sunil Kr.Singh,Advocates For the State :Mr.Jawed Gaffar Khan,AC to SC17 ----- 6. 07.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner State Bank of India and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 although respondent No.1 has entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 1.2.2003 (Annexure-2) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea in Minimum Wages Case No. 28 of 2001 by which he has rejected the petition of the petitioner raising preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the case and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court holding that the Labour 2 Court has got jurisdiction to dispose of the case. For decision of the present matter it is not necessary to deal with the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the State Bank of India as a welfare measure at its own cost opened a medical dispensary at Zonal Office, Purnea to provide medical facilities to the employees of the Bank for which a Doctor has been engaged on contract basis for rendering medical service on part-time basis and he is free to do practice outside also. To assist him in dispensation of the medicines to the employees of the Bank he engaged an assistant with pharmaceutical background and the Bank reimburses to the extent of Rs.800/- on certificate basis for such services being obtained by him. The Medical Officer engages an assistant on his own and the Bank has no control and supervision on the services rendered by such assistant engaged by the Medical Officer. The respondent No.1 in the present matter was engaged by the Medical Officer of the Bank (Zonal Office, Purnea). The said respondent No.1 filed a case under the Minimum Wages Act before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Puenea which was registered as 3 Minimum Wages Case No. 28 of 2001 alleging that as per the notification of the State Government dated 21.4.1995 he was entitled to get the minimum wages of Rs. 67/- per day equivalent to Rs. 1742/- per month for working on 26 days in a month and, accordingly, the claim of difference of wages of respondent No.1 was of Rs.55,578/- for the period from 1.4.1996 to 28.2.2001 with ten times compensation over the said amount making total claim of Rs. 6,11,358/- from the Bank in terms of the State Government notification No. XI/M.W. 4020/94/Land E/827 dated 21.4.1995. On notice the Bank appeared and filed written statement denying the claim on merits as well as being time barred and challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 and the applicability of the Act as also maintainability of the claim case itself. An application was also filed by the petitioner Bank on 28.8.2002 praying that the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the case and the jurisdiction of the court be decided first. After hearing the parties the Labour Court dismissed the preliminary objection regarding maintainability by its impugned order dated 1.2.2003. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner State Bank submits that under section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act the appropriate Government has been defined to mean in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by any corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government. It is further submitted by him that under Section 20(1) of the Act the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation or any Officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days, etc. He also relies on sub-section (2) of section 20 which provides that an employee who has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may apply to the authority appointed under sub-section (1) of the 5 Act for a direction under sub-section (3) of the Act for payment of the amount of minimum wages, etc. as provided therein. It is urged by learned counsel that the State Bank of India is a statutory corporation established by a Central Act, namely, the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and thus the appropriate Government in respect to the State Bank is the Central Government and any claim against the State Bank of India under the Minimum Wages Act has to be filed before the authority appointed under Section 20(1) of the Act by the Central Government as the appropriate Government. It is submitted by learned counsel that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea is not such an authority appointed by the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the Act and thus he has no authority to entertain any dispute under the Minimum Wages Act to be raised against the State Bank of India. In support of the aforesaid proposition learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another : AIR 1979 Bombay 250, in 6 paragraph 23 of which, it has been held as follows : “23. This being the legal position, we find that the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries are statutory Corporations. In making several appointments forming the structure of these Corporations, the Government’s role is quite clear. Even in the matter of laying down policy involving public interest, the State Bank shall be guided by the directions given by the Central Government in consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, and the Chairman of the State Bank of India. All such directions are to be given through the Reserve Bank, and if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.” On a consideration of the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner Bank this Court is of the view that the same are justified. In this regard one may usefully refer to Section 2(b) as also Section 20(1)(2) and (3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 which are in the following terms : “S.2(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 a mine, oil-field or major port, or any corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government; 7 S.20 Claims.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation or any Officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14, to employees employed or paid in that area. (2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under sub- section (3): Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable: Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. (3) When any application under sub- section (2) 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 8 prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct – (i) 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, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess; (ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees, and the Authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application.” From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is evident that the appropriate Government with respect to any scheduled employment carried on by any corporation established by a Central Act is the Central Government. Further, from Section 20 of the Act it is clear that any claims regarding payment of less than the minimum wages, etc. have to be made, in relation to any corporation established by the Central Government by an authority appointed by the Central Government as the appropriate Government under Section 20(1) of the Act. Only the other matters where the appropriate Government is not the Central Government the claim have to be 9 filed before the authority appointed by the State Government as the appropriate Government under Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea, is an authority appointed by the State Government for hearing claims under the Minimum Wages Act. He is not an authority appointed by the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the Act. The State Bank of India has been established by Section 3 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 which is a Parliamentary enactment. It has been constituted to carry on the business of banking and other business in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. As held by the Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra) it is evident from the provisions of the Act that several appointments forming the structure of this Corporation, namely, State Bank of India, are made by the Central Government. It is also provided under Section 18 of the Act that the State Bank shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Chairman of 10 the State Bank, give to it in the discharge of its functions and with regard to any such directions which are given by the Central Government through Reserve Bank the decision of the Central Government as to whether the direction relates to matter of policy involving public interest has been made final. Apart from the same it is also provided that at no time the shareholding in the State Bank of India by the Reserve Bank shall be less than 55% of the total share capital. It is also required to furnish returns to the Central Government including its profit and loss account and auditors report and report to the Central Government on its working and activities. Section 45 of the Act clearly lays down that no provision of law relating to the winding up of companies shall apply to the State Bank, and the State Bank shall not be placed in liquidation save by order of the Central Government and in such manner as it may direct. On a consideration of the various provisions of the State Bank of India Act there can hardly be any doubt that the State Bank is a statutory corporation established by the State Bank of India Act which is a Central Act. This 11 Court, thus, is in agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, as quoted above. The aforesaid position being accepted it is evident that the claim under the Minimum Wages Act against the State Bank of India can only be filed before an authority appointed by the Central Government as the appropriate Government under Section 20(1) of the Act, which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea is not. Thus the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea has no jurisdiction to consider the claim filed by the respondent No.1`before him. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 1.2.2003 as also the proceedings of Minimum Wages Case No.28 of 2001 pending before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Purnea are quashed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/