Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.W.P 3018 of 1985 and G.W.Ps No. 2803, 3137, 3138, 3140/85, 21 & 58/86

Advocates

Mr. K.B Rohtagi with Mr. S.K Dhingra, Advocates for the Petitioners
Mr. Pradeep Jain with Mr. Vivek Vishwabhan, Advocates for the Respondents

Judges

Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P Wadhwa
Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K Jain

Acts

clause (a) of section 3(1) read with clause (iii) of section 4(1) and section 5() of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short the Act).
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section
clause (b) of sub-section (1),
section 9. Rules

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — D.P. Wadhwa J. (Batch of Seven Writ Petitions)

Factual and Procedural Background

Seven writ petitions were filed by petitioners engaged in stone quarrying challenging the validity of a Notification dated 27 September 1985 issued by the Central Government (Ministry of Labour) under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Notification fixed a minimum piece rate of wages for employees doing stone breaking or stone crushing at Rs. 71 per truck load of 150 cubic feet, limited to broken stone size between 5 inches and 8 inches.

The petitioners contended that the Notification was not issued in terms of the Act, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and therefore beyond the competence of the Central Government.

Procedurally:

On 20 August 1986 this Court passed an interim order staying operation of the impugned Notification on condition that the petitioners continue to pay minimum wages as per the earlier Notification dated 12 February 1985 (the interim order referred to a daily figure of Rs. 47 which the Court noted was not an appropriate conversion from piece rate).
The respondents relied on awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, which had determined a wage rate and on directions in a Supreme Court matter (Bandhu-a Mukti Morcha) urging the Government to take steps to fix the tribunal-determined wage.
The Supreme Court on 7 May 1987 vacated the stay granted by the Delhi High Court in relation to the 27 September 1985 Notification, and the matters were later transferred back to this High Court by order dated 21 July 1988 which reinstated the High Court's 20 August 1986 order subject to variation or revocation by the High Court.
An Advisory Board sitting (minutes dated 28 August 1983 as recorded in the opinion) had approved the proposed Notification after discussion; the Board recommended certain further considerations (size/weight of stone; possible extension of rates to other quarries).
After hearing, this Court quashed the impugned Notification but directed interim monetary relief (see Holding and Implications).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Notification dated 27 September 1985 fixing minimum piece-rate wages for stone breaking and crushing in Faridabad District was issued in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (particularly section 5 and its proviso regarding consultation with the Advisory Board)?
Whether the Notification was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as contended by the petitioners?
What relief should follow if the Notification was found to be procedurally flawed or otherwise invalid?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The Notification was not issued in accordance with the requirements of the Minimum Wages Act.
The Notification was discriminatory — it imposed a higher minimum wage burden on licensees/lessees in Faridabad District compared with adjacent areas (Union Territory of Delhi and State of Rajasthan) despite similar economic conditions and standards of living.
The fixed minimum wages were arbitrary and higher than fair wages elsewhere; compliance would make petitioners' products uncompetitive, thereby restricting their right to carry on trade (invoking Article 19(1)(g)).
The Industrial Tribunal award relied upon to set the rate was ex parte and unjustified; the employer had not participated in proceedings and the award did not justify the fixed rate.

Respondents' Arguments

There was no violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights; under the Act different rates can be fixed for different areas and localities.
The rate fixed by the Notification reflected rates determined by the Industrial Tribunal in an industrial dispute (Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh) and was supported by directions from the Supreme Court (Bandhu-a Mukti Morcha) expecting the Government to issue a notification fixing tribunal-determined wages.
The Advisory Board considered the proposal and approved it; in light of tribunal awards and Supreme Court directions, the Central Government was justified in issuing the Notification.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bandhu-a Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others (C.M.P. 1452/85) decided 24 April 1985	Supreme Court expectation that the Government of India should take necessary steps to issue a notification fixing the wage determined by the Industrial Tribunal for the stone quarrying industry.	The respondents relied on this direction as justification for issuing the impugned Notification. The Court records this reliance but does not treat the direction as removing the statutory requirement that the Advisory Board properly consider objections under section 5.
Supreme Court order dated 7 May 1987 (vacating the Delhi High Court stay)	Operative direction: the stay granted by the Delhi High Court in respect of Notification No. S-32015/2/85-WD(MW) dated 27-9-1985 was vacated until further orders.	The opinion records that the Supreme Court's order vacated the earlier High Court stay, and that matters were subsequently transferred back to this High Court for disposal. Respondents pointed to this order in support of the Notification's continued operation at that time.
Awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh (in disputes involving quarries in Faridabad District)	Tribunal determinations of appropriate minimum piece-rate wages in industrial disputes.	The respondents relied heavily on these tribunal awards as the factual basis for the Notification's rates. The petitioners challenged the validity and circumstances of those awards (alleging ex parte award and non-participation by employer), and the Court noted those contentions while focusing on the Advisory Board's procedural shortcomings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeds from statutory prescription to application in the instant case:

Statutory framework: The Court summarized the purposes and procedures under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — including section 3 (power to fix minimum rates for scheduled employments and for different localities), section 4 (what constitutes minimum rate), and section 5 (procedure for fixing/revising wages). The Court reproduced section 5 and noted the proviso that when clause (b) of subsection (1) is used the Advisory Board must be consulted.
Procedure followed: The Central Government used clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 5 by publishing proposals (notification dated 23 May 1985) and specifying a date for consideration. Objections were filed by petitioners. An Advisory Board meeting was held (recorded as 28 August 1983 in the minutes reproduced) and the Board approved the proposal and recommended consideration of stone size/weight and possible extension to other quarries.
Critical assessment of the Advisory Board's action: The Court found that although the Advisory Board's minutes recorded approval, they did not demonstrate meaningful consideration of the petitioners' objections. The Court held that the minutes did not show how the Board considered various objections and relevant circumstances. The Court characterized the Board's action as hasty and "rather arbitrary," observing the Board appeared to have been influenced or overwhelmed by Supreme Court orders and the Industrial Tribunal awards but nonetheless had a statutory duty to perform its functions fairly, reasonably and justly.
Effect of procedural defect: Because the Advisory Board did not properly apply its mind to the objections and relevant considerations, the Court concluded the impugned Notification, which was issued on the basis of the Board's recommendation, could not stand.
On discrimination and constitutional challenge: The Court addressed the petitioners' plea of discrimination (comparing Faridabad rates with adjoining localities). It found no substance in the submission, noting the Act explicitly envisions different rates for different localities. The Court observed that if workers in adjacent localities considered their rates discriminatory, it would be for those workers to contest that discrimination; that fact did not prevent revising rates for Faridabad if done in accordance with the Act and Rules.
Practical considerations and interim monetary determination: The Court recognized it could not simply quash the Notification and leave a vacuum. It noted a subsequent all-India Notification dated 17 September 1991 fixing minimum piece rates for the whole country, and also observed that the parties had entered into a collective settlement on 30 September 1987 with specific agreed rates and terms for different stone sizes and related deductions. On the basis of the settlement and representations at hearing, respondents informed the Court that the rate for 5"–8" size would effectively be Rs. 88 per 200 cubic feet; applying a stated work-input ratio the Court computed Rs. 66 per 150 cubic feet as an appropriate interim figure for the period in question.
Balancing and orders: While quashing the impugned Notification because of the Advisory Board's defective consideration, the Court directed a remedial monetary scheme — ordering petitioners to pay Rs. 66 per 150 cubic feet for the whole period the impugned Notification was in operation (treated as if that rate had been prescribed), with allowances for deductions for amounts already paid under the interim orders and stays, payment of the balance within two months with 12% p.a. interest from the dates wages became due, filing of a complete list of wages paid, and enforcement rights retained by the respondents under the Act and Rules. The Court also granted respondents liberty to issue a fresh notification covering the relevant period in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

Core Holding: The Court quashed the impugned Notification dated 27 September 1985 because the Advisory Board's recommendation (on which the Notification was based) did not reflect proper consideration of the petitioners' objections and relevant circumstances; the Board's action was held to be arbitrary and procedurally defective.

Practical Consequences and Directions:

The impugned Notification is quashed insofar as it was issued based on the Advisory Board recommendation that the Court found procedurally flawed.
As an interim and compensatory measure for the whole period during which the impugned Notification operated, the Court directed that petitioners shall pay wages at the rate of Rs. 66 per 150 cubic feet (treated as if that rate had been prescribed by the Notification).
Petitioners are entitled to deduct amounts already paid under the earlier interim order(s) and the short period stay by the Supreme Court. The balance is to be paid within two months with interest at 12% per annum from the dates the wages became due until payment.
Petitioners must file a complete list of wages paid containing full particulars with the respondents, who retain the right to enforce payments as ordered under the Act and Rules. Payments are subject to adjustment if a notification is later issued covering the relevant period.
The respondents have liberty to issue a fresh notification for the entire period in accordance with law.
No order as to costs was made.

No broader new legal precedent was announced beyond the Court's application of statutory procedure and administrative fairness principles to the Advisory Board's conduct in this specific statutory context.

Show full summary ...

H.B Verma & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

D.P Wadhwa J.:— In this batch of seven writ petitions, the petitioners, who are engaged in the business of stone quarrying, have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 27 September 1985, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, under clause (a) of section 3(1) read with clause (iii) of section 4(1) and section 5() of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act”). By this notification the Central Government fixed minimum piece rate of wages of the employees doing the work of stone breaking or stone crushing at the rate of Rs. 71/- for a truck load of 150 cubic feet. The notification was limited to the size of the broken stone between 5 inches to 8 inches. The petitioners contend that the notification has mot been issued in terms of the requirements of the Act and further that the same is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and, thus, beyond the competence of the Central Government.

2. At the time when these writ petitions were admitted, this Court, on the application of the petitioners seeking interim relief, passed the following order on 20 August 1986:—

“The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned Notification issued by the Central Government is restricted to Faridabad only and in the adjoining areas the minimum wages contemplated is only Rs. 17/- whereas in Faridabad it is fixed at Rs. 47/-. In the circumstances, the operation of the impugned Notification dated 27th September, 1985 is stayed on the condition hat the petitioner will continue to pay the minimum wages as per the earlier Notification dated 12th February, 1985.”

3. We are not quite sure as to how the figure of Rs. 47/- per day has been arrived at. Though the notification fixed the wages of piece rate basis, the interim order talks of minimum wages on daily basis. We were, however, told by the learned counsel for the petitioners that two labourers would be able to break stones of the size mentioned in the notification of the volume of 200 cubic ft., in a day and if wages of Rs. 71/- was fixed for the volume of 150 cubic ft., for 200 cubic ft. the amount of wages would be Rs. 94/-, meaning thereby that each labourer would be getting Rs. 47/- for his labour each day. This, however, did not appear to us to be quite appropriate as the wages fixed on piece rate basis cannot be equated with daily wages as piece rate worker may work more to earn more and he need not be confined to any specific hours of work. The impugned notification recites that earlier as per the provisions of the Act a notification had been published for information and for inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby. These objections and suggestions were duly considered and thereafter the impugned notification was made. The notification fixes minimum rates of wages payable to the employees for piece work done by them in stone mines in the Faridabad District in the State of Haryana. The notification came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

4. The petitioners have contended that the notification is discriminatory in nature and singles out the licensees/lessees of stone mines in the Faridabad District imposing on them a higher burden by way of minimum wages vis-a-vis the licensees/lessees in the same region in the Union Territory of Delhi and the State of Rajasthan. They say, the economic conditions and standard of living are same in Faridabad District and the adjacent areas in Delhi and the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners also say that minimum wages fixed by the notification are arbitrary and are in fact more than even the fair wage fixed anywhere in the country. Petitioners say that if they have to pay minimum wages as per the impugned notification their finished mine products would be much expensive as compared to others in the adjacent areas and would, therefore, not be able to compete with them, and this imposes restriction on them to carry on trade. Principal contention of the petitioners, however is that provisions of the Act have not been complied in issuing the impugned notification.

5. Respondents deny that there is violation of any constitutional right of the petitioners and they say that under the Act different rates could be fixed for different areas and even for different localities. They say, the rate fixed under the notification was in fact what was determined by the Industrial Tribunal as the minimum wage in the stone quarrying industry in an industrial dispute between the mine workers and the employers. The award was given by the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh. The respondents then say that a direction had been issued by the Supreme Court in Bandhu-a Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others (C.M.P 1452/85) decided on 24 April 1985, whereby the court said that it expected the Government of India to take necessary steps to issue a notification fixing the wage determined by the Industrial Tribunal as the minimum wage for the stone quarrying industry. The dispute which had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal resulting in the aforesaid award was as under:—

“Whether the demand of the workers of Pali (Stone), Pali (Sand) and Badkhul Stone Quarries of M/s A.G & Co. Faridabad for raising the present rate of Rs: 71/- per 150 c.ft stone per truck to Rs. 100/- per truck is justified? If so, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?

6. It is then stated that the Cental Government Industrial Tribunal gave similar awards in two other identical dispute in respect of workmen employed by two other quarries, namely, Katan Stone Quarry of M/s. Pioneer Crushing Company and Mewls Maharajpur Stone Quarry of M/s. G.S.C & Co. in Faridabad District. The respondents heavily rely on various directions issued by the Supreme Court in justification of issuing the impugned notification. It appears, all these writ petitions and perhaps some more in other High Courts, were transferred to Supreme Court. On the interim application the Supreme Court, on 7 May 1987, passed the following order:

“Stay granted by the Delhi High Court in notification No. 32015/2/85 WD (MW) dated 27-9-1985 fixing minimum wages for workers engaged in the stone-breaking or stone-crushing industry in the Faridabad District is vacated until further orders”.

7. Thereafter, the batch of the present writ petitions was sent back to this Court by order dated 21 July 1988 which is as under:—

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that this case should go back to the High Court for decision. The order dated 31 March 1987, transferring the case from the High Court to this Court is recalled and the writ petition is transferred back to the High Court. The records of the case shall be transmitted forthwith to the High Court. We trust that the High Court will find it possible to take up the case at a very early date and dispose it of.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we reinstate the order dated 20 August 1986 of the High Court. It will, however, be open to the High Court to vary or revoke the order.

The transferred case is disposed of accordingly.

8. The Preamble of the Act shows that the Act has to provide for fixing the minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Under section 3 of the Act the appropriate Government shall fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees employed in the scheduled employment as per the procedure prescribed. Categories of scheduled employments are given in the Schedule and employment in stone breaking or stone crushing is one of such scheduled employments. Under sub-section (3) of this section, minimum rates of wages can be fixed for different localities; for different scheduled employments; and for different classes of work in the same scheduled employment. Section 4 prescribes as to what would be the minimum rate of wages. Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages. This section may be reproduced as unde:—

Procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages—(1) In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment for the first time under this Act or in revising minimum rates of wages so fixed, the appropriate Government shall either:—

(a) appoint as many committees and sub-committees as it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it an respect of such fixation or revision, as the case may be, or

(b) by notification in the Official Gazette, publish its proposals for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby and specify a date, not less than two months from the date of the notification, on which the proposals will be taken into consideration.

(2) After considering the advice of the committee or committees appointed under clause (a) of sub-section (1), or as the case may be, all representations received by it before the date specified in the notification under clause (b) of that sub-section, the appropriate Government shall, by notification in the official Gazettee, fix, or, as the case may be, revise the minimum rates of wages in respect of each scheduled employment, and unless such notification otherwise provides, it shall come into force on the expiry of three months from the date of its issue:

Provided that where the appropriate Government propose to revise the minimum rates of wages by the mode specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board also.”

9. Advisory Boards are constituted under section 7 and 8 of the Act and composition of committees is that given in section 9. Rules have been framed under the Act. Chapter II of the Rules pertains to members and staff and meetings of the Board, Committee and Advisory Committee; Chapter III deals with summoning of witnesses by the Committee, Advisory Committee and the Board and production of documents; Chapter IV deals with computation of payment of wages, hours of work and holidays, etc.

10. In the present case, the Central Government followed the procedure for revising minimum wages as contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5. It published its proposal for information by notification dated 23 May 1985. Objections were filed by the petitioners. The Advisory Board held its sitting On 28 August 1983 to consider the proposal for fixation of minimum piece rate of wages for the employees for piece work done by them in stone mines in Faridabad District in the State of Haryana. The Board approved the proposal as given in the proposed notification. The relevant minutes of the Advisory Board are as under:—

“Item No. 3:—Proposal for fixation of minimum piece rate of wages for the employees for piece work done by them in stone mines in the Faridabad District in the State of Haryana.

Before the discussions on this item started, the Secretary of the Board explained at length to the members the Circumstances leading to the publication of the notification proposing fixation of minimum piece rate of wages for the employees engaged in stone mines in the Faridabad district in the State of Haryana. The Secretary also drew the attention of the Board's members towards the various objections/suggestions received in response to the aforesaid proposal notification. After this detailed discussions on this item took place in which Dr. Ghanshyam, N. Singh, S/Sh. K.A Khan, J.N Bhardwaj, M. Kalyanasundram Dr. R. Nirdoshi, and Sh. D.K Rao participated. A letter sent, by Shri NX, Rungta, member of the Board, related to this item was also read by the Chairman.

After detailed discussions on this item, the Board approved the proposal notification in question. While approving the proposal under this item, in view of various objections received by the Government, the Board recommended as below:

(a) Government may consider and examine the size and or weight of stone and add in the final notification.

(b) Similar rates may be extended in due course to other stone quarries of the country.”

11. The Central Government then issued the impugned notification.

12. As seen above, a detailed procedure had been prescribed for revising the minimum wages. We agree with the submission of the petitioners that the Advisory Board hastened to approve the proposed notification without in any way discussing the objections raised by the petitioners. The minutes reproduced above do not show as to how the Advisory Board considered various objections of the petitioners. In our view, there has not been proper consideration of the relevant circumstances including the objections filed by the petitioners to the proposed increase in minimum wages by the impugned notification by the Advisory Board. The action of the Advisory Board appears to be rather arbitrary. It is not for us see whether the proposed revision in minimum wages is fair or reasonable, but the minutes of the Advisory Board should have reflected as to how it had applied its mind to all relevant considerations to say the least. We feel, purhaps, the Advisory Board was under too much pressure both on account of various Supreme Court orders and the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and was rather overwhelmed on that account. Whatever may be, the Advisory Board had to perform its statutory functions in a manner which would appear to be fair, reasonable and just. The impugned notification issued on the basis of any such recommendation or opinion of the Advisory Board cannot, therefore, stand.

13. The petitioners contended that the Industrial Award which was taken into consideration to fix the minimum wages under the notification was an exparte award. They said lease/licence of mining contract in respect of that award of the employer terminated on 31 March 1984 and the award was given on 10 September 1984 showing that the employer was not at all interested to contest the reference They said there was no justification in the award for fixing rate at Rs. 71/- per 100 cubic ft: minus deductions. In the award though the demand of the employees for raising the minimum wages to Rs. 100/- per 150 cubic ft’ was, however, rejected. The petitioners said that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Advisory Board at all and in this connection they also referred to the demand raised by the employees which led to the reference and ultimately the award being made. This is how the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Chandigarh, opined to refer to Industrial Tribunal the disputes as contained in demand No. 1 of the employees:

“Demand No. 1. The present rate of Rs. 71/- per 150 Q. Feet Stone per truck, should be raised to Rs. 100/- per truck, with proportionate increase if the quantity of stone is mote in the truck.

The stone Breaking and Stone Crushing is a scheduled employment, for which the minimum rate or wages, as fixed revised by the Haryana Govt. is Rs. 13.69 per day, which is applicable to the workers employed by the quarry in question. A truck load of stone on an average is a produce of one day of two labourers for which Rs. 71/- are paid. After deduction of expenses towards blasting, drilling, earth removal etc., the net income/wages of two workmen comes to Rs. 39/- which if divided into two, will come to Rs. 19.50 per workmen per day.

Thus, the demand of the union for furrher increase, over and above the minimum wages, needs to be examined in relation to the capacity of Industry to pay. Since the management did not participate in conciliation proceedings, I am of the opinion that this issue may be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for Judicial verdict with the following terms of reference:—

Whether the demand of the workers of Pali (Stone), Pali (Sand) & Badkhul Stone Quarries of M/s. A.G & Co., for raising 150 Q. Feet for truck rate from Rs. 71/- to Rs. 100/- is justified? If yes, to what relief the workers are entitled?”

To an extent the plea of the petitioners would appear to be correct, but we will not say further on the subject because of the view which ultimately we are taking.

14. We, however, find no substance in the submission of the petitioners that in the adjoining areas the minimum wages are far less than what is fixed by the impugned notification. As seen above, the Act envisages fixing of different rates for different localities. We do not see how the constitutional rights of the petitioners as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) have been infringed. It could be that the rates of minimum wages fixed in the adjacent localities is below than what should have been fixed under the Act and the Rules. That certainly can be no consideration not to revise the rates in the District Faridabad. When rates in Faridabad District are fixed in accordance with the Act and the Rules, it would be for the workers in the adjoining area to contend discrimination and not for the petitioner to do so. That, however, does not conclude the matter. We cannot just set aside the notification and leave things in vacuum and now it was stated before us that another notification was issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour on 17 September 1991 fixing minimum piece rate of wages for employees in scheduled employment of stone breaking and stone crushing. This notification applies to employees employed in stone mines in whole of the country.

15. During the course of hearing it was brought to our notice that an agreement was entered into between the petitioners as employers and various trade unions of the mine workers in Faridabad District. This was on 30 September 1987 and the terms of settlement were to come into force on the same date. The terms of settlement agreed to are as under:

1. It is agreed by the parties that the rate of wages for the size of stone below 5″ size will be paid at the rate of Rs. 160.00 (Rs. One hundred and sixty) per 200 C.Ft measurement) broken into sizes below 5″ by hand/manually.

2. It is agreed by the parties that the rates of wages for the size of stone from 5″ to 8″ will be paid to the workmen in accordance with the rates of wages as notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide Notification No. S-32015/2/85-WC(MW) dated 27-9-1985. This clause of settlement is without prejudice to the rights of the employers who have challenged the above said notification in the Court of Law.

3. It is agreed by the parties that the rates of wages for the size of stone of above 8″ to 12″ will be paid at the rate of Rs. 55.00 (Rs. fifty five) plus Rs. 10.00 (Rs. Ten), if the workmen put the hole for blasting by themselves for 200) Cft (Two hundred cubic fett) of measurement.

4. It is agreed by the employers that no deductions what-so-ever from the above mentioned piece rate wage on account of cost of explosives, detonator, removal of soil, de-watering charges, etc., will be made from the wages of the workmen.

5. It is agreed by the parties that the above mentioned terms of settlement will be binding on the parties till the expiry of the contract with the State Government of respective employers.

6. The parties have agreed that the terms of this settlement will also be binding on their contractors, if engaged any”.

16. On the basis of the aforesaid terms of settlement between the parties, we enquired from the respondents as to what would be the rate of wages for the size of stone of 5″ to 8″ and we were informed that it would be at the rate of Rs. 88/- per 200 cubic feet. We were also told that ratio of work input for breaking stones of the categories 1, 2 and 3 in the terms of settlement would be 12:7:5. On that basis the rate of wages for the stones of the size of 5″ to 8″ would be Rs. 66/- per 150 cubic feet. We will note that during the course of arguments, Mr. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioners were prepared even to pay Rs. 28/- per day as daily wages to the employees or Rs. 71/- per truck load of 200 cubic ft. We do not think we will accept either of the suggestions as in the first case when work has been done on piece rate basis payment on daily basis will net be right and in the second case we do not find any basis for fixing rate of Rs. 71/- per 200 cubic ft. While, therefore, we quash the impugned notification and would give liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh notification for whole of the period during which the impugned notification was in operation, in accordance with law, and, in the meanwhile, we will direct that petitioners shall make payment at the rate of Rs. 66/- per 150 cubic feet for whole of this period without making any deduction whatsoever and as if Rs. 66/- per 150 cubic feet was prescribed in the impugned notification. Petitioners shall, however, be entitled to deduct whatever wages have been paid so far on account of the interim order granted by this Court and the stay thereon operating for a short period thereto by the Supreme Court. The balance amount of wages shall be paid within two months from today with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates the wages became due and till payment. There shall be no default and petitioners shall file a complete list of wages so paid containing full particulars with the respondents who shall have full right to enforce the payments as ordered under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. All such payments shall further be subject to adjustment when notification, if any, is issued covering the relevant period. To that extent, the rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.

H.B Verma & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

Judgment Summary — D.P. Wadhwa J. (Batch of Seven Writ Petitions)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

H.B Verma & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

Comments