Calcutta High Court Upholds Interim Hike In Minimum Wage For Tea-Plantation Workers, Directs State To Finalise Minimum Wage In 6 Months

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea by owners/lessors of several tea plantations, for setting aside an advisory dated 27^th April 2023, issued by the State Labour Commissioner hiking interim minimum wage for tea plantation workers to Rs 250/- per day w.e.f. 1^st June 2023.

A single-bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury also directed the State to finalise the minimum wage settlement for such workers within a period of six months, and said:

I find that the Labour Commissioner had from time to time enhanced the wages pending finalisation of the minimum wage settlement. Such arrangement, obviously, had to be worked out since, the workers could not be called upon to wait indefinitely for the settlement of Wages under the said Act. I find that it is the petitioners had, in fact, all along accepted the enhancement of wages of the daily rated workers working in the tea garden. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioners, and the peculiar facts of this case, considering the human problem involved, it is only reasonable to conclude that the approach that was adopted by the parties, was to consciously overcome the delay in finalisation of the minimum wage structure.

Court acknowledged that when a statutory authority is required to do a particular act in a certain way, the statutory authority cannot deviate therefrom. However, Court said the present case appears to be different since here the petitioners consciously allowed the Government to decide on the matter and having done so, it continued, the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the action taken by the State.

"The petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. Admittedly, the petitioners having accepted and implemented the various decisions as regards enhancements as noted above, cannot question the authority of the Government to issue the aforesaid Advisory," Court remarked.

The petitioners in this case, were owners/lessors of tea plantations in West Bengal, and were in the business of hiring workers for their tea plantation, in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“MW Act”).

It was submitted by the petitioners that the State government had constituted a Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for the purpose of determining minimum wages of workers in tea plantations, and that prior to such a move, the wages of the aforesaid workers were fixed by mutual settlement between the workers and the owners of the plantations in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It was submitted that the final settlement in this regard had been entered into in 2015, and that it was to be in force till a minimum wage settlement would be fixed in terms of the Minimum Wages Act by the Advisory Committee.

It was further submitted that pending a permanent minimum wage settlement, the State had periodically been issuing memoranda for the increase in wages of such workers, which was de hors the Minimum Wages Act, but the petitioners had nevertheless accepted the same “to avoid industrial unrest.”

The petitioners argued that their financial condition had worsened since the aforesaid events, and that they had written to the Chief Minister highlighting the same, but even so, the Labour Commissioner had subsequently issued the impugned advisory hiking the wages of such workers to Rs 250/- per day pending finalisation of a minimum wage settlement.

It was submitted by the petitioners that even after letters to the Government to withdraw such an advisory, the same was not done, and that the MW Act did not recognise the State’s authority to unilaterally raise the minimum wage structure, especially during the subsistence of an advisory committee.

Finally, the petitioners argued that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”), the Labour Commissioner while issuing such the impugned advisory, was acting in the capacity of a “conciliation officer” and that issuance of such an advisory was well outside the ambit of powers of a conciliation officer under the ID Act.

The respondents on the other hand argued that although a committee had been set up under the MW Act for advising the Government in fixing and revising of minimum wages payable to tea plantation workers, but there had not been any final-outcome on the issue of determination of a minimum wage settlement under the MW Act.

It was submitted that under Article 43 of the Indian Constitution, the State had been entrusted with the responsibility to take care of the interest of the employers and the plantation workers for development of tea industry, and resultantly the State periodically and as an interim measure raised the wages of the tea garden workers, through memoranda, which were accepted and given effect to by the petitioners.

It was argued that the 27^th April notification had been issued after weighing in demands levelled by worker unions in a meeting with State officials, and that despite never challenging any wage hike effected by the State, the petitioners chose to object to the aforesaid notification.

Finally, on the prayer for a minimum wage settlement, the Court noted that it had been the joint prayer of both the petitioners and respondents for the settlement of a minimum wage for plantation workers “at the earliest.”

Upon hearing both sides, the Court upheld the impugned notification, and dismissed the writ petition. It concluded:

“Although, it has been strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Government did not have the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate, in relation to interim enhancement of wages, pending finalisation under the said Act, I, however, find that it is the petitioners who had, in fact, all along accepted the enhancement of wages of the daily rated workers working in the tea garden. The contention of the petitioners that to avoid industrial unrest, the petitioners had been accepting the enhancement and the present enhancement, if accepted, would jeopardise the petitioners’ interest, does not appear to be convincing. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the same.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the Advisory issued by the respondent no.2 at this stage.”

Case: Goodricke Group Limited & Ors. v The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Coram: Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 208

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment