Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 5887/1997 and 6105-6107/1997. By the impugned judgment, the order passed by a learned single Judge was set aside.
(2.) Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows : Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short the Act), the appellant-Lingegowd Detective and Security Chamber (P) Limited (appellant in C.A. No. 4497/2000) (in short Lingegowd) filed a writ petition praying for setting aside the orders on the ground that since its establishment of providing security personnel to various organization was not a scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule) and as no specific Notification was issued in that behalf, the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed holding that the workmen of Lingegowd were not entitled to grant of minimum wages. However, taking into account the beneficial nature of the provision, the learned single Judge directed Mysore Kirloskar Limited, (appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 4495-4498/2000, hereinafter referred to as Mysore Kirloskar) to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ex-gratia to the workmen as the principal employer. The respondent-Chitradurga District Mazdoor Sangha (Regd.) and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the Mazdoor Sangha) filed writ appeals contending that the learned single Judge was not justified in his view regarding non-applicability of the Act to the undertaking of Lingegowd which employed several persons for rendering security services to the principal employer i.e. Mysore Kirloskar. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that where a person provides labour or services to another for remuneration, which is less than the minimum wages, the labour or services provided by him fell within the scope and ambit of the words "forced labour" under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) and, therefore, the orders passed by the Authority under the Act were not to be interfered with. It was further held that since the principal employers activities were included in the list of Scheduled employments, under the Schedule to the Act, there was no necessity of issuance of a separate Notification with reference to the employment of security staff procured through Lingegowd. Reliance was placed on several decisions relating to the true essence of the expression "right to life" as appearing in Article 21 of the Constitution.
(3.) In support of the appeals filed by Lingegowd, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel has submitted that the Division Bench relied upon judgments which have no relevance to the subject-matter of dispute. In fact, the learned single Judge had analysed the basic issues in great detail and had come to the right conclusion that Lingegowd had no liability. It was further submitted that the view of the learned single Judge was correct except to the extent that it was held that the appellants had joint and several liability along with the principal employer for payment of rupees one lakh to the concerned employees.;