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

2. The facts are as follows :- By a notification dated March 11, 1952 the Governor of Assam fixed the minimum wages which were to come into force with effect from March 30, 1952, consisting of basic wages and dearness allowance in terms of cl. (i), sub-s. (1) of S. 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at the rates specified in the Schedule to the notification payable to the employees employed in Tea plantations in the different districts of Assam. Under the notification, the rates were to l, exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workers in respect of supplies of food-stuff and other essential commodities and amenities which were to continue unaffected. Further the existing tasks and hours of work were to continue until further orders. The Schedule shows that the notification was to apply to "ordinary unskilled labour" which was again sub-divided into three classes, namely, (a) adult male (16 years and above), (b) adult and female (16 years and above) and (c) working children (below 16 years and above 12 years). The rates were again to be different in the different districts of Assam which were broadly speaking, divided into three Sections. On April 16, 1952 the Government of Assam published the Minimum Wage Rules which fixed the number of hours in the case of an adult for a normal working day to nine hours, subject to a maximum of 48 hours in a week. On June 2, 1953 the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur served a notice on the manager of one of the appellants, Borhapjan Tea Estate to the effect that the minimum wages prescribed had not been paid to a member of employees in accordance with the prescribed rate. The addressee was required to pay the outstanding amount of wages with the requisite amount of delayed compensation to the employees in conformity with Section 20 (3) of the Minimum Wages Act and report compliance on or before the 10th of June, 1953. The manager was further directed to show cause why prosecution should not be sanctioned for violation of the provisions of the said Act. A list of the employees with their names was given showing 24 men labourers, 58 women labourers and one girl labourer. Similar notices were issued to the managers of the other tea estates. The managers submitted written replies to the authority denying liability for payment of the amount claimed in the notice. By order dated June 2, 1954 the above mentioned authority directed the different tea estates to pay the difference between the full minimum wages and the amounts actually paid to the labourers. It does not appear that the authority concerned held any inquiry or received any evidence beyond meeting the managers of the four tea estates at the premises of the Doom-Dooma Club where the Government Labour Officer was also present. He however recorded an order dated June 2, 1954 to the effect that the contention of the managements of the tea estates that the Lettera Challans who by reason of their old age, infirmity and physical defects etc. were incapable of performing a full normal working days work could not be accepted. According to the order, "the point for decision was, whether a Lettera Challan worker was entitled to the same rate of wages as ordinary labour working full normal working days" From the order, it appears that the authority concerned knew of the employment of this kind of sub-normal workers by various tea estates but he held that, in the absence of an order for exemption by the Government in terms of Section 26 of the Minimum Wages Act, he had to guide himself by the notification mentioned. He held further that under the Act and the Rules, Lettera Challan labour, in spite of the amount of work (time or task rate) performed by them was to be treated as ordinary labour entitled to wages for a full normal day. He therefore directed that the tea estates should pay the difference between the full minimum wages and the amount actually paid, together with compensation which he fixed at three times the amount payable to each worker. The tea estates filed four separate suits for a declaration that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur D/- 2-6-1954 were illegal and void and without jurisdiction and a further declaration that the employees mentioned (sub-normal workers) were not entitled to full minimum wages without performing a normal days task or without working the prescribed number of working hours. The Subordinate Judge framed a number of issues including one regarding the maintainability of the suits, heard evidence and came to the conclusion that the decision or orders of the Deputy Commissioner were all final in terms of the Minimum Wages Act and the suits were barred "under the provisions of the Act." The learned Judges of the High Court of Assam, by a majority, upheld the decision of the Subordinate Judge.

Court's reasoning:
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.