AMAR SEVA SANGH Vs. PARMAR DAHYABHAI VIRABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 08th April, 2004 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No.1885 of 1998, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of arrears of minimum wages to the respondent for the period from 01 st January, 1986 to 31st October, 1998 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

(2.) THE matrix of the facts as culled out from the case is that the respondent herein filed an application under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for recovery of total amount of Rs.33,21,947/- towards the amount of arrears of salary, overtime amount, amount towards week off as well as leave salary under the Shops and Establishment Act vide Recovery Application No.1885 of 1998 and it was decided by way of the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) HAVING considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the documentary evidence produced on record as well as the averments made in the petition, it transpires that the claim of the respondent that he was in service of the petitioner from 01st January, 1986 could not have been mechanically accepted by the Labour Court in view of the fact that the respondent himself admitted in his cross-examination before the Labour Court that he was working in the third shift in Sarangpur Cotton Mill No.2 till the year 1996. It is required to be noted that a person working in third shift of a Mill could not have been in continuous employment of the petitioner at the same time and it is impossible for a person to work for 16 hours a day at two different places. Moreover, as per section 60 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), there is prohibition against double employment. The said provision of section 60 of the Act reads as under : "Restriction on Double Employment : 60. No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any factory on any day on which he has already been working in any other factory, save in such circumstances as may be prescribed." It is pertinent to note that breach of section 60 of the Act is an offence punishable under section 97 and 111 of the Act. In view of aforesaid, the Labour Court having accepted that the respondent was already employed in Sarangpur Cotton Mills till the year 1996 could not have believed the version of the respondent that he was simultaneously working with the petitioner during the relevant period and that too, in contravention of the statutory provisions and could not have consequently allowed the claim for difference in minimum wages from January, 1986.