Judgment Case ID: 460

Judgment:
Appeals Nos. 279 and 280 of 1955. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated July 7 1953	 of the Assam High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 147 and 148 of 1952	 47 360 C. K. Dophtary	 Solicitor General of India	 P. K. Goswami	 section N. Mukherji and B. N. Ghosh	 for the appellants in both appeals. Purshottam Tricumdas and Naunit Lal	 for respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 280/56. Naunit Lal	 for respondent No. I in both Appeals. December 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. 	These two appeals with certificates under article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature in Assam dismissing the appellants ' application under article 226 challenging the orders of the first respondent Shri B. L. Sen	 Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 whereby he allowed the applications filed on behalf of the labourers employed in the Teok Tea Estate and the Dalim Tea Estate under section 20 of the (Act XI of 1948)	 hereinafter referred to as the Act. On March 11	 1952	 the Government of Assam	 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub section (2) of section 5 of the Act issued the following notification: " No. GLR. 352/51/56. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub section (2) of section 5 of the (XI of 1948)	 as amended	 the Governor of Assam	 having considered the advice of the committee appointed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 5 of the said Act	 is pleased to fix minimum wages	 which will come into force with effect from the 30th March	 1952	 consisting of basic wages and dearness allowance in terms of clause (1) of sub section 1 of section 4 of the said Act	 at the rates as specified in the schedule hereto annexed payable to employees employed in tea plantations in the different districts of Assam. These rates are exclusive of concessions enjoyed by the workers in respect of supplies of foodstuffs and other essential commodities and other amenities which will continue unaffected. The existing 361 tasks and hours of work may continue until further orders. SCHEDULE. ORDINARY UNSKILLED LABOUR Adult male. Adult female. (16 years & above) (16 years & above) Basic D.A. Total. BasicD.A.Total. (p.d.) (p.d.) (p.d.)(p.d.)(p.d.)(p.d. Rest Rs. Rs. of Assam As.12/ As.6/ 1 /21 As. 11/ As. 5 Valley. By notification No. GLR. 44/51	 dated the 16th April	 1952	 the said Government introduced the Minimum Wages Rules which	 inter alia	 provided: "Rule 24. Number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day. (1) The number of hours which shall constitute normal working day shall be (a)in the case of an adult	 9 hours; subject to a maximum of 48 hours in a week; . . . . . . . . . " By another notification No. GLR. 352/51 dated May 12	 1952	 the said Government explained that the word " may " mentioned in the notification dated March 11	 1952	 will have the force of " shall ". The result was that in cl. (2) of the said notification	 the last sentence ran as: "The existing tasks and hours of work shall continue until further orders. Prior to the fixation of the minimum wages (consisting of basic wages and dearness allowance as aforesaid	 the labourers engaged in plucking tea leave	% in these tea estates used to be paid basic wages for male labourers at as. 8/ per day for plucking 16 seers of green leaves and for female labourers at as. 6/ per day for plucking 12 seers of green leaves. This was the work load or task in respect of which the basic wages of as. 8/ and as. 6/ respectively were paid to these labourers apart from the dearness allowance in addition to such basic wages. If the labourers plucked larger quantities of green leaves they used to be 362 paid by way of ticca extra wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer in excess of 16 seers and 12 seers respectively. It may be noted that the payment of basic wages on the above computation also worked out at the rate of 6 ps. per seer of green leaves plucked by the labourers. Even after the fixation of the minimum wages by the said notification	 the managers of these tea estates continued to pay to the labourers wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer of green leaves plucked by them. They	 however	 in view of the fact that as. 12/ per day were fixed as the basic wages for the male labourers and as. II / per day as the basic wages for the female labourers	 refused to make any extra payment to them on the basis of 6 ps. per seer unless the green leaves plucked by them exceeded 24 seers and 22 seers respectively	 thus maintaining their old standard of payment on the basis of 6 ps. per seer. The labourers contended that the existing work load or task at the date of the said notification was 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers for female labourers and they were entitled to such extra payment at the rate of 6 ps. per seer for leaves plucked by them in excess of the 16 seers and 12 seers respectively. There was a difference thus in payment	 of as. 4/ per day in the case of male labourers and as. 51 per day in the case of female labourers and they claimed that the managers of the tea estates should pay them the basic wages of as. 12/per day and as. I I/ per day respectively for the work load or task of 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers for female labourers and extra wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer of leaves plucked by them in excess of those quantities. This claim of theirs was the subject matter of the applications filed on their behalf before the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 under section 20(2) of the Act. The applicants asked for directions under a. 20(3) to the managers	 of the tea estates for payment of the difference between the minimum wages fixed by the Government and the wages actually paid to them from March 30	 1952	 which was the date from which the notification came into force. The managers of the 363 estates contested these applications mainly on two grounds; viz.	 (1) that the applications were not maintainable under section 20 of the Act	 and (2) that there was no fixed workload or task in respect of plucking for earning daily basic wages before the introduction of the minimum wages. The Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 who was the authority appointed under the Act to hear the claims arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages to these labourers	 entertained the applications	 recorded evidence and heard arguments addressed to him by both the parties. As regards the first objection	 he held that	 if the applicants ' version was true there was a clear case of payment of less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government and the applications were maintainable under section 20 of the Act. As regards the second objection	 he came to the conclusion on the evidence recorded before him that there was a work load or task of 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers for female labourers in respect of the daily basic wages of as. 8/ and as. 6/ respectively earned by them before the fixation of the minimum wages by the said notification	 that such work load or task was the basis of the fixation of the minimum wages consisting	 inter alia	 of the basic wages of as. 12/ per day for male labourers and as. II/ per day for female labourers and that the labourers were	 therefore	 entitled to extra payment for green leaves plucked by them in excess of 16 seers and 12 seers respectively at the rate of 6 ps. per seer. He accordingly ordered that the managers must pay the labourers engaged in plucking tea leaves the minimum basic wages at the rate of as. 12/ per day to the male labourers for 16 seers of green leaves and as. 11/ per day to the female labourers for 12 seers of green leaves and extra wages at the rate of 6 ps. per seer for green leaves plucked in excess of those quantities. The managers of the estates thereupon filed applications under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature in Assam raising the same contentions which had been negatived by the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar. The High Court dismissed 364 these applications and granted the certificates under article 133(1)(c) and that is how these appeals come before us. It is urged in the first instance that the notification dated March 11	 1952	 fixed only I a minimum time rate ' and no more. Under section 3 (2) of the Act it was competent to the Government to fix (a) a minimum rate of wages for time work (called " a minimum time rate")	 (b) a minimum rate of wages for piece work (called " a minimum piece rate ") or (c) a minimum rate to be applied in the case of employees employed on piece work for the purpose of securing to such	 employees a minimum rate of wages on a time work basis (called " a guaranteed time rate ") and what was done by the Government was to fix " a minimum time rate" within the meaning of section 3 (2) (a) so that the labourers were to be paid the basic wages mentioned in the Schedule regardless of their out turn of work. If this contention is correct	 the labourers would not be entitled to any extra wages for the quantities of green leaves plucked by them in excess of the 16 seers or 12 seers per day which was alleged to be the existing work load or task at the date of the notification. It is	 therefore '	 urged that prior to such fixation of minimum wages there was no work load or task for the labourers engaged in plucking tea leaves. This contention is obviously unsound. Both the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 and the High Court found as a fact that before the fixation of the minimum 'wages as above	 there was a basic work load or task of 16 seers of leaves for the male labourers and 12 seers of leaves for the female labourers. This was proved by the evidence of the Hazira Moharers of these estates and this was recognized by the Government itself when it stated in the notification that " the existing tasks and hours of work shall continue until further orders. " If the minimum basic wages were fixed irrespective of existing work load or task and what was fixed was " a minimum time rate " as contended by the appellants there was no need whatever to mention this in the notification. The direction that the existing workload or task was to continue until further orders on the 365 contrary goes to show that the basic wages mentioned in the Schedule were correlated to the existing workload or task and as. 12/ for the male labourers and as. 11/ for the female labourers were fixed in regard to the existing work load or task of 16 seers of tea leaves to be plucked by the male labourers and 12 seers of tea leaves to be plucked by the female labourers. It is argued that the continuance of the existing work load or task which was thus provided for had no relation to the basic wages which were fixed for the male and female labourers respectively but was only intended to prevent the employers from increasing the existing work load or task with a view to make up for the increase in basic wages. This argument	 however	 does not take count of the fact that there was existing at the date of the notification a work load or task which was the basis of the payments used to be made to the labourers	 the basic wages paid to them being calculated at the rate of 6 ps. per seer of tea leaves plucked by them. The labourers were thus being paid the basic wages of as. 8/ for male labourers and as. 6/for female labourers for the work load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of tea leaves respectively and the sole intention of the Government in issuing the notification was to increase these basic wages of as. 8/and as. 6/ to as. 12/ and as. II/ respectively while maintaining the same basic work load or task assigned to the male and female labourers. If the intention was not to correlate these basic wages to the basic work load or task which already existed and if the same state of affairs was to continue	 viz.	 that the labourers would continue to be paid the basic wages on the computation of 6 ps. per seer of green leaves plucked by them	 there was no sense whatever in increasing the basic wages from as. 8/ to as. 12/ for male labourers and from as. 6/ to as. II/ for female labourers as was sought to be done by issuing the notification in question. The acceptance of the contention of the appellants would mean that no advantage whatever was sought to be conferred by the Government on the labourers engaged in plucking leaves in these tea estates which intention can scarcely be 366 attributed to the Government. We are	 therefore	 of opinion that what was fixed by the notification was not merely " a minimum time rate" irrespective of the existing work load or task which used to be performed by the labourers but was a ' minimum wage which	 though fixed for time work	 was necessarily correlated to the work load or task then being performed by these labourers so that whatever extra work was done by the labourers in excess of the existing work load or task of plucking 16 seers of tea leaves in the case of male labourers and 12 seers of tea leaves in the case of female labourers had to be paid for in accordance with the practice then prevailing	 whether it was based on agreement or ticca or custom	 at the rate of 6 ps. per seer. The conclusions reached in this behalf both by the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 and the High Court are	 therefore	 correct and cannot be challenged. The appellants	 however	 contend that this is not a case of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages and the claims	 if any	 of the labourers do not fall within section 20 of the Act. The tea estates in question have never refused to pay and are in fact paying to the labourers the basic wages of as. 12/ per day for male labourers and as. II / per day for female labourers and the grievance	 if any	 of the labourers is that they have not been paid the extra wages calculated on the basis of 6 ps. per seer for tea leaves plucked by them in excess of the basic work load or task of 16 seers for male labourers and 12 seers for female labourers. This claim of the labourers	 therefore	 amounts to a claim for extra wages over and above the basic wages of as. 12/ and as. II/ per day respectively which are being paid to them and	 therefore	 is not a claim arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages within the meaning of section 20(1) of the Act and the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 had no jurisdiction to entertain such claim. Section 20 so far as is material for our purposes provides: " 20. Claims. (1)The appropriate Government may	 by notification in the official Gazette	 appoint any Commissioner 367 for Workmen 's Compensation or 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 to employees employed or paid in. that area. (2)Where an employee is paid less than the minimum rates of wages fixed for his class of work under this Act	 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):. . . (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 enquiry if any as it may consider necessary	 may	 without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act	 direct 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 and the Authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application. (6) Every direction of the Authority under this section shall be final. It is argued that the authority appointed under section 20(1) of the Act is invested with the powers of hearing and deciding claims arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages and is authorised to hear the applicant and the employer or give them an opportunity of being heard	 and	 after such further enquiry	 as it may consider necessary	 to give directions under section 20(3) of the Act which directions are final and not subject to any appeal or 368 revision by any higher authority. Such drastic powers could not have been meant to be exercised when there are complicated questions of law or fact but could be exercised only in cases where the	 quantum of minimum wages fixed by the notification in question could be determined by the authority on a plain reading of the terms	 thereof. Then and then only would the authority have jurisdiction to entertain such claims and give the necessary direction	% having the attribute of finality. In the instant cases before us	 not only did the matters involve complicated questions of fact which required recording of evidence by the authority but they also involved the construction of the notification which was by no means felicitously worded. The existing tasks which were to continue until further orders were not at all patent and if the determination thereof had to be made by the authority appointed under section 20(1) of the Act	 it would involve	 in cases of dispute	 recording of considerable evidence and an adjudication of the same after a consideration of the arguments advanced before the authority by both the parties. There is in the instant cases moreover a further difficulty and it is that there are two rival contentions which can	 with equal force	 be urged by the respective parties. The appellants contend that they have all throughout been paying to the laborers	 after the date of the notification in question	 basic wages at the rate of as. 12/ per day for male labourers and as. 1 1 / per day for the female labourers and there is no instance which has been cited on behalf of the respondents where	 anything less then the minimum basic wages thus fixed by the Government has ever been paid. The claim of the labourers comes to this that they have not been paid the extra wages for plucking green leaves in excess of the basic work load or task of 16 seers and 12 seers respectively. Such claim for extra wages certainly does not amount to a claim arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages. It is	 on the other hand	 contended on behalf of the respondents that the basic wages of as. 12/. per day for male labourers and as. II/ per 369 day for female labourers fixed under the notification are correlated to the existing work load	 or task of plucking green leaves weighing 16 Beers and 12 seers respectively and if they are entitled to the payment of these basic wages on their putting forward that much quantity of work	 the non payment by the managers.of these tea ' estates to them of any extra wages on the computation of 6 ps. per extra seer un less they plucked 24 seers and 22 seers of green leaves respectively is tantamount to nonpayment of the; minimum basic wages of as. 12/ and as. 11/ respectively as fixed in the notification. "We do not	 propose to decide this question of jurisdiction as in the instant cases we have	 in addition to the determination of the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 the adjudication of the main disputes between the parties by the High Court itself. I Whatever infirmities might possibly have attached to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 on the score of want of jurisdiction	 we feel that having regard to the circumstance that the matters have been pending since September	 1952	 right up to the end of the year 1956	 no useful purpose will be served by our interfering at this stage	 as the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 and the High Court both came to the same conclusion	 a conclusion which we also have endorsed above	 that the labourers are entitled to be paid the basic wages of as. 12/ per day	for male labourers and as. 11/ per day for female labourers for the work.:load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green leaves respectively and they are entitled to extra wages for every seer of green leaves plucked by. them I over and above these quantities of 16 seers and 12 	seers respectively	 at the. computation of 6 Ps. per seer. There are moreover special reasons why we should not interfere with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar	 in these appeals. The matters do not come to us by way of appeal directly from the orders of the Deputy Commissioner	 Sibsagar. They were the subject	 in the first instance	 of proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court 370 of Assam. Proceedings by way of certiorari are not of course ". (Vide Halsbury 's Laws of England '	 Hailsham Edition	 Vol. 9	 para 1480 and 1481	 pp. 877 878). The High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice	 and in these appeals which are directed	 against the orders of the High. Court in applications under article 226	 we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the	 case requires it. But we are not so satisfied. We are of opinion that	 having regard to the merits which have been concurrently foundint favour of the respondents both by the De Duty Commissioner		 Sibsagar	 and the High (Court	 we should decline to interfere. This being the point of substance which has been decided in favour of the respondents	 we are of the opinion that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss them but having regard to the particular circumstances which we have adverted to before	 we order that each party will bear and pay its own costs of these appeals. Appeals dismissed.

Summary:
The labourers were being paid the basic wages of as. 8/ for male labourers and as. 6/ for female labourers for the work load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of green tea leaves respectively each day. If the labourers plucked larger quantities of leaves they were paid extra wages at the rate of 6 Ps. per seer in excess of 16 seers and 12 seers respectively. The Government issued a notification under section 3 read with section 5 (2) of the 	 increasing the rates of basic wages to as. I2/and as. 11/ respectively. The management thereafter refused to make any extra payment to the labourers at the rate of 6 Ps. per seer unless the leaves plucked by them exceeded 24 seers and 22 seers respectively. Held	 that the sole intention of the Government in issuing the notification was to increase the basic wages while maintaining the same basic work load or task assigned to the labourers	 so that whatever extra work was done by the labourers in excess of the existing work load or task of plucking 16 seers and 12 seers of tea leaves by the male and female labourers respectively	 bad still to be paid for at the rate of 6 Ps. per seer. Quaere: Whether the claim for the extra wages amounts to a claim arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages within the meaning of section 20 (2) of the . A writ of certiorari cannot be had as a matter of course. The High Court is entitled to refuse the writ if it is satisfied that there was no failure of justice. The Supreme Court declines to interfere	 in appeal	 with the discretion of the High Court unless it is satisfied that the justice of the case requires such interference.