- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and recovery of Rs. 8,88,365/- against the defendant-appellants before the learned District Judge, Alwar which was transferred for adjudication to the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar (Rajasthan) (hereinafter to be referred as "learned trial court"). In the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant-appellants have distributed the area for Sector 8 to the plaintiff-respondent for cleaning and picking the wastage and an agreement dated 24.07.2000 was executed in this respect. After completion of the contract period on 31.03.2001, the same was extended upto 31.03.2007. In the said agreement, there was a Condition No.23 that the Municipal Corporation demanded 50 labourers from the Contractor (plaintiff) and at present the minimum wages for the period of one month will be paid and in case in future, the State Government increased the minimum wages, then the same would be paid in the same ratio in the future per month. Similarly, the plaintiff-respondent was awarded another contract of Ward No.5 which was earlier given to one Rajesh Kumar for clearing and picking the wastage vide Office Order-dated 27.12.2001 and the same was continued upto 31.03.2007. In the contract of Sector 5, there is no dispute between the parties that there was no such Condition No.23. THEre is also no dispute between the parties that vide Government notification dated 20th July 2004, the minimum wages for unskilled labour was Rs. 60 per day, which was enhanced upto Rs. 73/- per day. When the same was not paid to the plaintiff-respondent a civil suit was filed before the learned trial court. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed only two issues. One is with regard to whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to receive the difference of minimum wages of Rs. 8,88,365/- as per Para No.17 of the plaint from the defendants-appellants? and Second is Relief? The oral evidence was recorded and various documents were produced. After consideration of the aforesaid documents, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that since the increase was a statutory increase,therefore, the Contractor (plaintiff) was entitled for the difference of the wages. Counsel for the defendants-appellants submits that there is no justification for granting the difference of the minimum wages for Sector No.5 as there was no such Clause. However, he also submits that the Contractor (plaintiff) has not paid the increase minimum wages to the employees of both the Sectors. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that since the increase was a statutory increase, therefore, it is immaterial that in the Contract of Sector No.5, there was no such Clause of difference of increase. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent also submits that the respondent has made the payment of the increase minimum wages to the labourers, therefore, he is entitled for the said amount.
(3.) THE learned trial court after appreciating the evidence, passed the decree of recovery of Rs, 8,88,365/- for Sector No.5 and 8 with 6% interest from the date of filing of the civil suit till the realization from the defendants-appellants. I have gone through the record of the case and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. This Court is of the view that the trial court has committed no error in granting the judgment and decree of recovery of Rs. 8,88,365/- from the defendants-appellants with 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realization. Since, the increase was a statutory increase, therefore, the present First Appeal has no force and the same is dismissed. However, during the execution, it is expected from the trial court to ensure that the minimum statutory increase in the wages either have been paid to the workers and if not paid, then, the same be paid to the workers employed by the Contractor for the said work. ;