Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Jaggu .

2. The indisputed facts which has come on record are that after issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993 by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act,1970 no fresh agreement, in the interregnum period (17th March, 1993 to April, 1996) was executed between the appellant and the contract labour and the agreement in existence was extended from time to time by the competent authority and the contract labour was allowed to continue on the same terms & conditions till their services were terminated by the contractor after they had proceeded on strike in the month of April, 1996.

7. The extract pleadings of his application on the basis of which he claimed wages and other benefits payable to an employee vis­à­vis those who are regular employee employed in SAIL are as under:­ “1.The applicant is employed in the Captive Mine of the Steel Authority of India (hereinafter called as SAIL’) in Kuteshwar Limestone Mines (Barhi), Gairtalai, Distt. Jabalpur from 01.09.1984 and is still in employment. He is a skilled workman and is working as Sikor/Loader/Suitor/Rake Loader.

16. The applicant has not been paid the wages as per Minimum Wages from 17/3/1993. The exact figures of amount due i.e. difference etc. are available with the management and within their special knowledge. The opponents are in possession of all the records and details of the payment due as per wage agreement and other details. They are liable to produce the same before this Hon’ble Authority to make appropriate and proper calculation. In case they fail to produce the documents an adverse inference is liable to be taken against them.

14. Learned counsel further submits that the tripartite agreement which was entered between the contract labourers, contractor and appellant SAIL in presence of the labour authorities dated 12th November, 1991 specifically takes care of the Rule 25(2)(iv) & (v) of the CLRA Rules, 1971 and indisputedly, each of the worker was paid Rs. 11.65/­ per day over the minimum wages notified by the appropriate Government, as agreed between the parties. The tripartite agreement was effective from 1st April 1991 although it was entered on 12 th 10 November, 1991 but wages were paid to each of the contract worker in terms of the tripartite agreement.

22. To appreciate the rival submissions made by the respective counsels, it is considered appropriate to first take note of the indisputed facts and the scheme of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & CLRA Act emerged from the records are that the appellant SAIL is a Government of India Undertaking and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India having its steel plants in different parts of India and was a registered establishment under Section 7 of the CLRA Act and the contractor through whom the service of the contract labour was 16 engaged was holding its licence as envisaged under Section 12 of the CLRA Act. The tripartite memorandum of settlement dated 12th November, 1991 which became effective from 1 st April, 1991, was signed by the appellant, contractor and the respondent through Union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur. Under the said settlement, it was agreed that the contract labour would be paid Rs. 11.65/­ per day over and above the minimum wages notified by the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Indisputedly, each of the member of the union was paid his wages in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 12th November, 1991. At the later stage, the appropriate Government issued a prohibition notification of employment of contract labour dated 17 th March, 1993 and the fact remains that the contract labour which was engaged prior to the prohibition notification was allowed to continue in the establishment of the appellant(SAIL) on the same terms and conditions with no change in their service conditions under the agreement which was executed prior to the prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993, was extended from time to time by the competent authority and the services of the contract 17 labour came to be terminated by the respective contractor in the month of April, 1996 after they went on strike.

(b) provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days which shall be allowed to all employees or to any specified class of employees and for the payment of remuneration in respect of such days of rest;

44. In addition to it, in terms of reference made by the appropriate Government dated 27th January, 2003 read with Corrigendum dated 9th April, 2003 followed with 22nd February, 2005, the CGIT framed various issues including issue nos. V & VI and answered it accordingly.

45. The answer thereto has been upheld by us in the independent proceedings.

46. In our considered view, the order of the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 dated 2nd December, 2003 and confirmed by the High Court under the impugned judgment dated 11th December, 2006 are unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

47. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 8094 of 2011 filed by Steel Authority of India Ltd. is accordingly allowed and order of the prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1948 and Judgment of the High Court are hereby set aside.

48. Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2011 filed by the employees(Jaggu & Others) is dismissed. No costs.

49. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.