PABBOJAN TEA CO. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals raise common questions of law and facts and one judgment will cover all these four appeals. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff -Appellants are four tea companies. Defendant No. 1 is the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, Dibrugarh and is the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Defendant No. 2 is the Government Labour Officer, Dibrugarh and Defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the garden labourers who have been sued in their representative capacity. The Plaintiffs have claimed a declaration that the orders passed by the Defendant No. 1 dated the 2nd June 1954 are void, illegal and ultra vires and without jurisdiction and are not binding on the Plaintiffs. A further declaration is claimed that the Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 and similar other sub -normal workers are not entitled to full minimum wages without performing a normal day's task or without working the prescribed number of hours. A perpetual injunction is claimed against Defendant No. 1 restraining him from enforcing the order dated the 2nd June 1954.

(2.) THE suit was contested both on questions of fact and law. The Defendants' case was that the suit is not maintainable and that the order of the Defendant No. 1 was valid in law and was. not without jurisdiction. The trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) IS the claim of Defendant No. 2, barred' under 1st proviso of Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act'