Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The petitioners challenge a notice dated February 17, 2017 issued by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 asking the petitioner No. 2 to appear before him to answer certain questions relating to the application made by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). According to the petitioners, the State Government had issued the trade licence in their favour in the year 2005 and they have been discharging their duties under the said Act and, therefore, the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act have no jurisdiction to initiate a case against the petitioners.
(2.) I am not inclined to interfere in this matter, as the fact that the State Government has issued the trade licence, is no immunity from the operation of the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners have not been able to make out any case why they should not be considered as an 'employer' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the said Act which appears to be an all-comprehensive one. The question is not which Government had issued the trade licence in favour of an employer. The question is whether the employer comes within the scheduled employment as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. The definition of employer makes no difference between an employer engaging private persons as employees or the Central Government as an employer. In case of Patel Ishwarbhai Promod Bhai Vs. Taluka Development Officer, 1983 LabIC 321, the Supreme Court considered the case of the tube-well operators working at the district and taluka level, Panchayat and held that they would be in the scheduled employment as contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Act. If an employment under a local authority is within the schedule to the Act and if employees are entitled to Minimum Wages, I find no reason why the petitioners cannot be proceeded under the said Act.
(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that they have been paying their employees in terms of the West Bengal Minimum Wages Act. Since the petitioners could not produce the said Act or could not even satisfy about the existence of any such Act, the claim of making payment in terms of the a non-existent legislation cannot be reckoned to be conferring any immunity to the petitioners from the operation of the Act.;