Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pepega (Insulation & Packaging) Ltd., challenged an order of the First Labour Court, Nagpur, which directed it to pay Rs.15,782/- to the respondent workman as difference of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The respondent had filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of paper and paper board, a scheduled industry under the Minimum Wages Act, and had not paid wages as prescribed. The petitioner contended that it only processes paper into duplicating stencils and carbon paper, not manufacturing paper. The Labour Court rejected this contention, holding that the petitioner was involved in manufacturing paper based on stencil paper labels claiming manufacture. The High Court noted that in earlier writ petitions (No.916/2000, 917/2000, 927/2000, 929/2000) decided on 19th April, 2001, it had already held that the petitioner is engaged in processing paper, not manufacturing paper, and thus not covered by Entry 20 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. The High Court found that the Labour Court's order was contrary to this binding precedent. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Labour Court's order, and dismissed the respondent's application.
Headnote
A) Minimum Wages - Manufacture of Paper - Entry 20 Schedule - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - The employer processed paper into stencil and carbon paper, not manufacturing paper itself. The High Court held that merely changing the form of original paper does not amount to manufacture of paper. The employer is not liable to pay minimum wages prescribed for the paper industry. (Paras 2-4)
B) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 33C(2) - Computation of Wages - Prior Judgment Binding - The High Court's earlier judgment in Writ Petitions No.916/2000, 917/2000, 927/2000 and 929/2000 dated 19th April, 2001 had already concluded that the petitioner is engaged in processing paper and not manufacturing paper. That judgment was binding and the Labour Court erred in ignoring it. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-employer, engaged in converting paper into duplicating stencils and carbon paper, is engaged in 'manufacture of paper' so as to be covered by Entry 20 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of the Labour Court dated not mentioned, and dismissed the respondent's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'manufacture' under Minimum Wages Act
- 1948
- Distinction between processing and manufacturing
- Binding nature of prior High Court judgment on same employer
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 305
WRIT PETITION NO. 384 OF 2002
Ms. Renuka Puranik h/f. Shri R.B.Puranik for Petitioner, Mrs. Indira L. Bodade for Respondent No.1, None for Respondent No.2
Pepega (Insulation & Packaging) Ltd.
Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Nagpur and Pralhad Raghwaji Pardhi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226/227 challenging Labour Court order directing payment of difference in wages under Minimum Wages Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner employer sought quashing of Labour Court order dated not mentioned directing payment of Rs.15,782/- to respondent workman.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged Labour Court's finding that it is engaged in manufacture of paper and liable to pay minimum wages under Entry 20 of Schedule to Minimum Wages Act.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court allowed respondent's application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, holding petitioner is manufacturing paper. High Court in earlier writ petitions (No.916/2000 etc.) held petitioner is processing paper, not manufacturing.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is engaged in 'manufacture of paper' under Entry 20 of Schedule to Minimum Wages Act, 1948?
Whether the Labour Court's order is contrary to the binding judgment of this Court in earlier writ petitions?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that it only processes paper into stencil and carbon paper, not manufacturing paper, and this was already decided by High Court in earlier writ petitions.
Respondent workman did not appear; Labour Court had held petitioner manufactures paper based on stencil paper labels.
Ratio Decidendi
An employer engaged in processing paper into stencil and carbon paper does not 'manufacture' paper within the meaning of Entry 20 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The earlier judgment of the High Court on the same issue is binding and the Labour Court erred in ignoring it.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court held that it was clear that in the process of manufacturing of stencil paper, no paper as such is manufactured and that only the form of original paper changes.
The judgment, which was made available for my perusal shows that the workmen of the petitioner had filed similar applications under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which had been similarly allowed by the Labour Court holding that the petitioner is an Industry manufacturing paper.
Procedural History
Respondent workman filed application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act before First Labour Court, Nagpur. Labour Court allowed application on not mentioned date. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.384/2002 in Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Petition was admitted, notices issued. Respondent workman was served but did not appear at hearing. High Court heard petitioner's counsel and delivered judgment on 08-01-2010.
Acts & Sections
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Sections 2, 9, Entry 20 of Schedule
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 33C(2)
