SHIB PROSAD GHOSH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE
LAWS(CAL)-1963-3-20
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 19,1963

Shib Prosad Ghosh Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SOUTH INDIA ESTATE LABOUR RELATIONS ORGANIZATION V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
EXPRESS NEWSPAPER PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.)THERE is a union of bus -owners, in the district 24 -Parganae, known an the Gholsapur Bus Syndicate (hereinafter referred to as the syndicate). The petitioner, Shib Prosad Ghosh, was, at all times material to this rule, the secretary of the syndicate and ex officio member of the executive committee of the Syndicate.
(2.)BY an award of an industrial tribunal, dated 20 March 1966, the scale of pay for starters and timekeepers employed by the syndicate was fixed at Re. 87 per month, inclusive of allowances. Thereafter, on 4 July 1959, the respondent State Government reviewed the minimum wages payable to starters and timekeepers, employed by public transport concerns in the district of 24 -Parganas, in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and fixed the same at Rs. 100. This order was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 6 August 1959.
Notwithstanding the above fixation of minimum wages, there was an agreement between the syndicate and their workmen, represented by Rashtriya Bus Mazdoor Congress, on 19 August 1959, whereby it was agreed that the starters would get a pay of Rs. 87 per month. Respondents 3 to 8, who are the employees under the syndicate, filed an application before the District Judge of 24 -Parganas, functioning as the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, claiming Rs. 507 as wages being the difference between Rs. 100, fixed as minimum wages by the State Government on 6 August 1959, and Rs. 87, paid as the monthly wages by the syndicate, for the period from 15 October 1959 to 30 April 1960. There was also a claim for compensation made in the said application and he was described as the secretary and the paymaster of the syndicate.

(3.)THE petitioner filed written statement in the said proceeding, inter alia, alleging (a) that he was not the paymaster and no order could be made against him; (b) that in view of the award by the industrial tribunal, fixing a rate of wages, no claim under the Minimum Wages Act was maintainable; and (c) the order of review of wages was made according to law.


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