SOMIBEN MATHURBHAI VASAVA Vs. LALJI HAKKA PARMAR LEATHER WORKS COMPANY
LAWS(GJH)-1983-11-6
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on November 22,1983

SOMIBEN MATHURBHAI VASAVA Appellant
VERSUS
Lalji Hakka Parmar Leather Works Company Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.A.MEHTA - (1.) This petition arises from dismissal of a Recovery Application claiming payment of minimum wages. The petitioner and several other workmen of the respondent employer had filed Recovery Applications under sec. 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming payment of special allowance fixed by a notification (Ann. A to the petition) under the Minimum Wages Act for the scheduled industry of the respondent-employer. The petitioner claimed recovery of an amount of Ass. 2246.20 ps. being the difference of amount between the wages actually paid and payable under the notification under Minimum Wages Act for the period from 1977 to 31-5-1978. There were several other recovery applications and it appears that a joint purshis had been given by the parties that whatever order is made in the present proceedings would be implemented in other recovery applications also.
(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent faintly raised a contention that the notification is applicable to tanneries and leather manufactory and the respondents establishment could not be covered under the same. The Labour Court has negatived that contention relying on the case of SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS WEST BENGAL V. SOON 1979 L. I. CASES 1963. The Labour Court held that the leather manufactory means the place where the leather work is carried on. It held that leather manufactory would include preparations of articles of leather and preparations of washers from leather. In leather factory leather cannot be manufactured (leather is a natural product) but products of leather can be manufactured and that would be leather manufactory. Hence the provisions of the notification are applicable to the respondent-establishment which manufactures leather washers. The Labour Court has rightly rejected this contention of the employer.
(3.) The respondent-employer also contended that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are not applicable to piece-rated workmen as the piece rate used to be paid to the petitioner according to the agreement made with the workmen and since the notification does not fix the minimum piece rate the said notification is not applicable in the present case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.