HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR Vs. THE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act upholding the claim of the workman that the difference of the amount actually paid and the amount that was liable to be paid as minimum wage amounting to Rs. 10,426.45 by the Management to the workman. This amount of Rs. 10,426.45 corresponded to the period between 01.12.1988 to 31.10.1991.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has principally two objections: (i) the petition is not maintainable under Section 20(2) of Payment of Minimum Wages Act, since the minimum wages as determined by the State is itself not in dispute. The proper remedy must be only under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and cannot be before the authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act; and (ii) the demand for securing a claim under Section 20(2) of the Payment of Wages Act shall pertain to a period not more than 6 months. The claim for 35 months was, therefore, not maintainable and not in accordance with law.

(3.) To the first proposition urged, the counsel would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Managanese Ore (India) Limited Versus Chandi Lal Saha and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 520. The Supreme Court was dealing with the situation of when the entitlement of the workman to the minimum wages itself is not denied, the court, therefore, observed that if the rate of minimum wages was not denied, then a relief cannot be secured under Section 20(2). I asked the counsel at the time of arguments that whether the Management was prepared to accede to the claim of the workman and whether the Management did not actually pay the salary less than the minimum wages rate prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. The counsel would not respond to the fact with a direct reply, but would nibble at the peripheries to contend that if the Management did not deny the rates, the approach to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act does not arise. I find the argument to be frivolous, for, if it was admitted by the Management that the petitioner was entitled to the minimum wages as an organization, namely, a hospital, to which the Act was extended, then the nonpayment of the said sum itself would amount to a denial of the claim to minimum wages. Assuming for the arguments' sake that the Management was not denying entitlement to minimum wages but would still defy the workman to go to some other authority under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, then in fairness as the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, I would hold that the liability to pay the minimum wages itself is not denied before me and hence, there was nothing wrong in that direction.