Assistant Labour Commissioner Not Competent To Decide Complaint Filed By Inspector Under Minimum Wages Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) single bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not a competent authority to decide the claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide the complaint filed by...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) single bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not a competent authority to decide the claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide the complaint filed by the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act.
The High Court noted that Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act gives the relevant government the authority to designate any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, any officer of the State Government functioning as a Labour Commissioner for a specific region, any officer of the State Government not ranking lower than Labour Commissioner, or any officer possessing experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate, through notification in the official gazette, to adjudicate claims pertaining to payment below the minimum wage rates within a designated area. Thus, it held that any Commissioner, officer not lower than Commissioner rank, or officer with judicial experience can be appointed to handle such claims.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) underc of India to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rewa. The order directed the Petitioners to deposit the difference in overtime payment and compensation amounting to Rs. 70,46,638 within 30 days. The Petitioners argued that the Assistant Labour Commissioner lacked the authority to enforce the Minimum Wages Act and contended that the complaint was based on non-payment of minimum wages rather than less payment of overtime. They argued that there was a lack of specificity in the complaint.
In opposition, the State vehemently opposed the petition. The State argued that under section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, the State Government has empowered all Commissioners for Workmen's Compensation to enforce the Act, including the Assistant Labour Commissioner. It argued that the notice issued to the Petitioners regarding non-payment of minimum wages encompassed the allegation of less payment of overtime.
To substantiate the authority of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the State provided a copy of the notification issued by the State Government. The notification appoints all Commissioners for Workmen's Compensation as judges of a Civil Court to hear claims arising from less than minimum wages under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. Additionally, a circular issued by the Labour Department delegated jurisdiction to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Relying on a notification dated 26.6.1998, which appointed all Assistant Labour Commissioners as Commissioners for Workmen Compensation, the State argued that the Assistant Labour Commissioners were empowered to exercise the duties under both the Workmen Compensation Act and the Minimum Wages Act.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court noted that Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act elucidates the discretion of the appropriate government to appoint individuals, including Commissioners for Workmen's Compensation or officers of the State Government with requisite experience, to adjudicate claims related to payment issues. It held that the language of the provision is broad, allowing for the appointment of officers with varied backgrounds, including those with experience as judges or magistrates, to serve as the designated authority within a specified jurisdiction. In examining the language and intent of Section 20(1), the High Court held that the provision provides latitude in the appointment of authorities to hear and decide claims stemming from inadequate wage payments.
empowers various officers to address grievances pertaining to minimum wage violations.
However, the High Court noted that there was an absence of statutory provisions equating the Assistant Labour Commissioner with the rank of Commissioner.
“The counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of law which may indicate that the Assistant Labour Commissioner shall be at par with the rank of Commissioner. Counsel for the respondents also could not point out as to whether Assistant Commissioner is subordinate to Commissioner or is holding the similar rank.”
Therefore, the High Court held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner lacked the competence to adjudicate the complaint filed by the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act.
“Under these circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that even by issuing a notification in the official gazette an Assistant Labour Commissioner cannot be assigned the duties or cannot be appointed as an authority to decide the claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages and that is why it appears that the State Government issued another notification dated 6.11.2020, thereby appointing all Commissioners of Workmen Compensation as a judge of a civil court to be the authority to hear all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages.”
Case Title: The Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 16946 Of 2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 96
Advocate for the Petitioner: Shri Aditya Adhikari – Senior Advocate With Shri Eijaz Nazar Siddique - Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Smt.Swati A.George