Case: The Pabbojan Tea Co. Ltd., Etc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, Etc

the officer concerned although he was given the powers of a civil court in certain respects. In such a situation it is impossible to hold that the Legislature meant to exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to go into the question of non-payment of minimum wages claimed as final. In our opinion, sub-s. (6) of S. 20 merely shows that the discretion of the Authority could not be questioned under any provision of the Act. It does not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court when the challenge is as to the applicability of the Act to a certain class of workers.14. It is pertinent to note that S. 24 of the Act creates an express bar in respect of a particular kind of suits, namely, suits for recovery of wages in certain eventualities. The obvious intention was that a poor employee was not to be driven to file a suit for the payment of the deficit of his wages but that he could avail himself of the machinery provided by the Act to get quick relief. It does not in terms bar the employer from instituting a suit when his claim is that he has been called upon to pay wages and compensation to persons to who are not governed by the notification under the Minimum Wages Act.15. On an analysis of the provisions of the Act, we find (1) suits of the nature to be found in this case are not expressly barred by the Act; (2) There is no provision for appeal or revision from the direction of the authority given under S. 20 (3) of the Act; and (3) The authority acting under S. 20 (3) might levy a penalty which might be as high as ten times the alleged deficit of payment which again is not subject to any further scrutiny by any higher authority. In view of our findings as above, as also the fact that the authority in this case disregarded the provision as to hearing and inquiry contained in the Act for all practical purposes, we hold that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits.16. The question next arises as to whether the plaintiffs made out any case for relief. In our view, the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to relief. The notification dated March 11, 1952 was clearly applicable only to "ordinary skilled labour".The word ordinary has in our opinion, some significance. It means "usual, not exceptional. In other words, ordinary unskilled labour must mean unskilled labour prepared to work and working in the ordinary way.If under Rule 24 of the rules framed under this Act the period of work is fixed at nine hours a day, a labourer who can not work for more than half of it, does not fall within the category of ordinary unskilled labour. A Lettera Challan cannot work due to his incapacity, old age, infirmity etc. According to the evidence of the managers of the tea gardens, they were unwilling to work for more than half the day because of their physical condition. It was due to their want or physical strength to work for nine hours a day and not the inability or unwillingness of the employer to find employment for them for a full day. Take for instance the facts in Pabbojan companys case. According to the evidence of its manager, the labour force in the estate consisted of 1650 labour while the number of sub-normal workers was 83 before March 30, 1952. It cannot be suggested that if the tea garden could provide work for 1567 labourers working nine hours a day, it could not do so for an additional number of 83 persons. As the manager said, these persons were unwilling to perform the normal tasks which were available to them as normal labourers. The manager also said that lettera challans (sub-normal workers) always go off at I1 or 12 mid-day. Take again the evidence of Bairagi, a worker of the Rupai Tea Estate. He said that some years before he was examined in court, he used to work as a carpenter. As a result of a fall from a house, he had pain on his chest and approached the doctor and requested him to enter his name as lettera challan. He frankly admitted that he got into lettera challan because he could not complete the full task. The evidence of the managers and of this the only witness on this point on behalf of labour establishes beyond doubt that lettera challans could not work a full day and as such they were not ordinary unskilled labour.As such their case would be covered by the proviso to Section 15 and they would not be entitled to receive wages for a full normal working day because of their unwillingness to work. It does not matter whether some of the lettera challans could also be said to be disabled employees who would come within the purview of Section 26 (1) of the Act.From the evidence of the managers, it is clear that the system of lettera challans had been in force for very many years. The record does not show nor are we in a position to guess why an exception was not made in their case in the notification.But even in the absence of any mention of lettera challans in the notification, sub-normal workers who are unwilling to work for more than half a day are not entitled to receive what ordinary unskilled labourers; working nine hours a day get. The object of the Act is to ensure some sort of industrial peace and harmony by providing that labour cannot be exploited and must at least be provided with wages which are fixed at certain minimum rates. It would go against such a principle if the courts were to uphold that persons who cannot work for more than half a day should receive what others working a full day get. However, that is a matter which the appropriate government may consider.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. It is pertinent to note that S. 24 of the Act creates an express bar in respect of a particular kind of suits, namely, suits for recovery of wages in certain eventualities. The obvious intention was that a poor employee was not to be driven to file a suit for the payment of the deficit of his wages but that he could avail himself of the machinery provided by the Act to get quick relief. It does not in terms bar the employer from instituting a suit when his claim is that he has been called upon to pay wages and compensation to persons to who are not governed by the notification under the Minimum Wages Act.15. On an analysis of the provisions of the Act, we find (1) suits of the nature to be found in this case are not expressly barred by the Act; (2) There is no provision for appeal or revision from the direction of the authority given under S. 20 (3) of the Act; and (3) The authority acting under S. 20 (3) might levy a penalty which might be as high as ten times the alleged deficit of payment which again is not subject to any further scrutiny by any higher authority. In view of our findings as above, as also the fact that the authority in this case disregarded the provision as to hearing and inquiry contained in the Act for all practical purposes, we hold that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain theour view, the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to relief. The notification dated March 11, 1952 was clearly applicable only to "ordinary skilled labour".The word ordinary has in our opinion, some significance. It means "usual, not exceptional. In other words, ordinary unskilled labour must mean unskilled labour prepared to work and working in the ordinary way.If under Rule 24 of the rules framed under this Act the period of work is fixed at nine hours a day, a labourer who can not work for more than half of it, does not fall within the category of ordinary unskilled labour. A Lettera Challan cannot work due to his incapacity, old age, infirmity etc. According to the evidence of the managers of the tea gardens, they were unwilling to work for more than half the day because of their physical condition. It was due to their want or physical strength to work for nine hours a day and not the inability or unwillingness of the employer to find employment for them for a full day. Take for instance the facts in Pabbojan companys case. According to the evidence of its manager, the labour force in the estate consisted of 1650 labour while the number of sub-normal workers was 83 before March 30, 1952. It cannot be suggested that if the tea garden could provide work for 1567 labourers working nine hours a day, it could not do so for an additional number of 83 persons. As the manager said, these persons were unwilling to perform the normal tasks which were available to them as normal labourers. The manager also said that lettera challans (sub-normal workers) always go off at I1 or 12 mid-day. Take again the evidence of Bairagi, a worker of the Rupai Tea Estate. He said that some years before he was examined in court, he used to work as a carpenter. As a result of a fall from a house, he had pain on his chest and approached the doctor and requested him to enter his name as lettera challan. He frankly admitted that he got into lettera challan because he could not complete the full task. The evidence of the managers and of this the only witness on this point on behalf of labour establishes beyond doubt that lettera challans could not work a full day and as such they were not ordinary unskilled labour.As such their case would be covered by the proviso to Section 15 and they would not be entitled to receive wages for a full normal working day because of their unwillingness to work. It does not matter whether some of the lettera challans could also be said to be disabled employees who would come within the purview of Section 26 (1) of the Act.From the evidence of the managers, it is clear that the system of lettera challans had been in force for very many years. The record does not show nor are we in a position to guess why an exception was not made in their case in the notification.But even in the absence of any mention of lettera challans in the notification, sub-normal workers who are unwilling to work for more than half a day are not entitled to receive what ordinary unskilled labourers; working nine hours a day get. The object of the Act is to ensure some sort of industrial peace and harmony by providing that labour cannot be exploited and must at least be provided with wages which are fixed at certain minimum rates. It would go against such a principle if the courts were to uphold that persons who cannot work for more than half a day should receive what others working a full day get. However, that is a matter which the appropriate government may consider.