Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Steel Authority of India LTD

    Uploaded by

    Hanu Mittal
    - The case involved 2040 contract laborers who worked at Steel Authority of India Ltd's (SAIL) mine and filed a claim for minimum wages in 1998. - The laborers argued they were entitled to wages equal to regular employees after a 1993 notification prohibited contract labor. However, SAIL argued minimum wages were paid as agreed. - The court found section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply as wages were paid. It also found the laborers did not prove their work was similar to regular employees. The court set aside orders in favor of the laborers and dismissed their appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Steel Authority of India LTD

    Uploaded by

    Hanu Mittal
    2K views13 pages
    - The case involved 2040 contract laborers who worked at Steel Authority of India Ltd's (SAIL) mine and filed a claim for minimum wages in 1998. - The laborers argued they were entitled to wages equal to regular employees after a 1993 notification prohibited contract labor. However, SAIL argued minimum wages were paid as agreed. - The court found section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply as wages were paid. It also found the laborers did not prove their work was similar to regular employees. The court set aside orders in favor of the laborers and dismissed their appeal.

    Original Title

    STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The case involved 2040 contract laborers who worked at Steel Authority of India Ltd's (SAIL) mine and filed a claim for minimum wages in 1998. - The laborers argued they were entitled to wages equal to regular employees after a 1993 notification prohibited contract labor. However, SAIL argued minimum wages were paid as agreed. - The court found section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply as wages were paid. It also found the laborers did not prove their work was similar to regular employees. The court set aside orders in favor of the laborers and dismissed their appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views13 pages

    Steel Authority of India LTD

    Uploaded by

    Hanu Mittal
    - The case involved 2040 contract laborers who worked at Steel Authority of India Ltd's (SAIL) mine and filed a claim for minimum wages in 1998. - The laborers argued they were entitled to wages equal to regular employees after a 1993 notification prohibited contract labor. However, SAIL argued minimum wages were paid as agreed. - The court found section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act did not apply as wages were paid. It also found the laborers did not prove their work was similar to regular employees. The court set aside orders in favor of the laborers and dismissed their appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 13

    STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

    VERSUS

    JAGGU AND OTHERS ETC.

    (Civil Appeal No.(S) 8094 of 2011)

    SUBMITTED TO:

    Dr. VIRENDER NEGI

    UILS, PU CHANDIGARH SUBMITTED BY:

    SANCHIT SINGLA

    B.COM. L.LB, 9th SEM

    SECTION – D
    ROLL NO - 200/16

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    I would like to express my gratitude towards my professor Dr. Virender Negi for
    assigning me the caselaw of Steel Authority Of India vs. Jaggu(civil appeal no
    8094 of 2011) And Others, and for providing ample time to us to prepare projects
    and providing with the necessary material, guidance and support needed.

    I have taken extreme care during the preparation of this project, still some errors
    might have crept into due to lack of knowledge on my part, or unknowingly.
    Apologies are sought for the same.

    Thank You,

    SANCHIT SINGLA

    200/16
    LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

    SAIL Steel Authority Of India

    CLRA Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970

    MWA Minimum Wages Act, 1948


    CASE SUMMARY

    The SAIL has a captive mine in Kuteshwar limestone mines in Gairtalai of Dist.
    Jabalpur which is a scheduled employment within the meaning of section 2(e) of
    the minimum wages act.

    The story of this appeal dates back to 1998 and relates to Jaggu who was one of the
    2040 laborers who worked in the mine as contract labor. Jaggu was employed in
    the Mine from 01.09.1984 and continued to be in employment till April 1996. He
    was a skilled workman and was working as Sikor/Loader/ Suitor/Rake Loader.

    The dispute started after the issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th
    March, 1993 by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA
    Act, 1970.

    After the issuance of the notification, no fresh agreement was executed between
    SAIL and the contract labor and the agreement in existence was extended from
    time to time by the competent authority and the contract labour was allowed to
    continue on the same terms & conditions till their services were terminated by the
    contractor after they had proceeded on strike in the month of April, 1996.

    And after that they filed their claim applications in the year 1998 on different dates
    under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

    Application filed by Jaggu is considered to be the lead application. The labour


    wanted their status to be elevated to that of regular employees of the SAIL.
    So in the application filed, it was contended that the contract labour had
    discharged the same or similar nature of work as that of direct employee of the
    establishment, which makes them entitled for the wages which are payable to an
    employee who is directly/regularly appointed in the establishment.

    And that Management (SAIL) has been refusing to make payment to the applicant
    as per Minimum Wages from 17/3/1993 as which are paid to the regular employees
    of the SAIL. So it was prayed by the applicant that a direction may be issued under
    section 20[3] of the act for;

    (i) Payment of difference of wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act
    and the wages actually paid.
    (ii) Compensation of 10 times amounting to Rs. 24, 86,130.

    The matter was contested between the parties and the prescribed authority after
    holding a summary enquiry as contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
    under its Order dated 2nd December, 2003 allowed the claim petitions with five
    times of compensation in favor of 2040 contract employees.

    The order of the Payment of Wages Authority dated 2nd December, 2003 came to
    be challenged by the appellant SAIL by way of writ petition before the Single
    Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was partly allowed vide
    Order dated 24th January, 2006 holding that the justice would be met if the
    respondents (employees) are allowed 6% interest on the amount payable to each of
    them as compensation from the date of passing of the impugned order of the
    authority till its payment.
    This again came to be challenged by SAIL before the Division Bench of the High
    Court but was again dismissed by the judgment dated 11th December, 2006 where
    it was held that instead of grant of 6% interest as compensation, a consolidated
    sum of Rs. 5 crore be paid towards compensation to the aggrieved employees.

    And this has led to the filing of the present appeal before the supreme court.
    MAIN ISSUES UNDER THE APPEAL

    1. Whether the minimum wages to be paid or not?


    2. Whether section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act attracted here?
    3. Whether the work done by the labour was of the same nature as
    discharged by the regular employees?
    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR ISSUE NO. 1

     The tripartite memorandum of settlement dated 12th November, 1991 which


    became effective from 1st April, 1991,was signed by the appellant,
    contractor and the respondent through Union before the Assistant Labour
    Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur.
     Under the said settlement, it was agreed that the contract labour would be
    paid Rs. 11.65/ per day over and above the minimum wages notified by the
    appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
     Such rate of wages as agreed in its tripartite agreement dated 12th
    November, 1991 were paid at Rs. 11.65/ per day over and above the
    minimum wages with effect from 1st April, 1991 and that was undisputedly
    complied with and each of the employee (contract labour) who had
    served/worked in the establishment had been paid his dues wages until their
    services came to be terminated by the respective contractors in April, 1996.

    So, in the light of above mentioned points it can be concluded that minimum wages
    were paid to the employees.
    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR ISSUE NO. 2

    The exposition of scheme of the minimum wages Act, 1948 and its jurisdiction to
    invoke Section 20(1) of the Act has been examined by this Court in the caselaw of:

    Town Municipal Council, Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts,
    Hubli and Others, Etc.

     It is clear that the scheme of the Act of which reference has been made by
    this Court clearly manifests that the Act is primarily concerned with fixing
    rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment of work on a day
    of rest and is not really intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment of
    wages .

     It is a social protection to ensure and secure adequate living wage in the


    interest of public welfare.

    So, in the present case it is ample clear that the dispute is not regarding the
    nonpayment of fixed minimum wages. So, section 20(1) of the minimum wages act
    is not applicable here.
    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FOR ISSUE NO. 3

    The claim of the respondents in their application filed under Section 20(1) of the
    Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was that:

     Once they have been allowed to work after the prohibition notification dated
    17th March, 1993 has come into force, pursuant to which their status as
    contract labour in the establishment ceased to operate as a result of contract
    of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labour
    having been statutorily extinguished, their relationship stood automatically
    converted into the employer (i.e., SAIL in the instant case) and the employee
    (i.e. contract labour) making them entitled for wages which are notified by
    the NJCS as per the memorandum of agreement which is payable to
    direct/regular employees of SAIL.

     It may be noticed that there are no pleadings on record and primarily the
    burden was on the respondent applicants to establish that the duties
    discharged by each of the employee was same or similar to that of a
    regular/direct employee appointed/employed by the establishment and this
    can be discerned from the facts pleaded in the application filed by one Jaggu
    of which a reference has been made.

     In absence of the initial burden being discharged in the first instance by the
    respondent employees, the onus could not have been shifted upon the
    appellant SAIL to counter the nature of work discharged by each of the
    workmen as to whether it was the same or similar to that of a
    permanent/regular employee of the establishment.
    So the respondents are not entitled to claim wages as are given to regular
    employees since they could not prove that the nature of the work that they were
    discharging was same as that of the nature of work discharged by regular
    employees.
    JUDGEMENT DELIEVERED

    It was held by the hon’ble court that the order of the prescribed authority under the
    Minimum Wages Act, 1948 dated 2nd December, 2003 and confirmed by the High
    Court under the impugned judgment dated 11th December, 2006 are unsustainable
    and deserves to be set aside.

    Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 8094 of 2011 filed by Steel Authority of India
    Ltd. is accordingly allowed and order of the prescribed authority under the
    Payment of Wages Act, 1948 and Judgment of the High Court are hereby set aside.

    Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2011 filed by the employees (Jaggu & Others) is
    dismissed at no costs.
    REFERENCES

    Web Sources :

    1 www.Lawtimesjournal.in
    2 www.indiankanoon.org
    3 www.Sail.co.in

    You might also like