S. Siri Jagan, J. - (1.) A very difficult question arises for consideration in this case, on the question of interpretation of Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act on which there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, one by a three Member bench and the other by a two Member bench. The situation arises in the following factual scenario.
(2.) The petitioners in this original petition filed an application under Section 14 of the Minimum Wages Act before the 1st respondent seeking overtime wages. As per the settlements arrived at between the management and the Unions, the workmen were actually getting wages in excess of the minimum wages prescribed as per notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The authority under the Minimum Wages Act, by Ext.P1 order, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Hatta v. Bhagat Singh & Others, 1998 (1) LLJ 815, denied jurisdiction on the ground that Section 14 can be invoked only by persons who are getting minimum wages under the Act and not by those getting better wages. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 order.
(3.) The petitioners' contention is that the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Singh's case (supra), which is rendered by a two member Bench of the Supreme Court, did not consider the earlier decision of the Supreme Court rendered by a Bench consisting of three judges in Y. A. Mamarde and others v. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. AIR 1972 SC 1721 which takes a contrary view. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the earlier decision, the Supreme Court has categorically held that a claim under the Minimum Wages Act for overtime wages under section 14 would lie even where the employee is getting wages in excess of the minimum wages prescribed and therefore the subsequent decision of the bench consisting of two Judges is per incurium, without knowing the earlier binding judgment of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court. She further relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2005)2 SCC 673, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. She also refers to the text from Salmond on Jurisprudence on the subject, which would, according to her, show that a lower court can pick and choose between two conflicting decisions of the same court on the same question of law. Counsel would alternately submit that in any case the later Supreme Court decision is distinguishable on facts, since in that case, the employees employed were governed by statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which did not provide for payment of overtime wages.;