Case Note & Summary
The Goa Mine Workers Union, a registered trade union, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents, including the Government of India and various mine owners and managers, to implement and enforce the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and to ensure payment of minimum wages to mine workers. The petitioner contended that the workers were being paid wages below the minimum prescribed under the Act. The respondents, particularly the mine owners, raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as the workers had an alternative efficacious remedy under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which provides for adjudication of disputes regarding wages. The court, after hearing the parties, upheld the preliminary objection. It held that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is a complete code for the enforcement of payment of wages, including minimum wages, and the workers could approach the authority under that Act. The court noted that the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy and dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Minimum Wages - Alternative Remedy - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - The petitioner, a trade union, sought a writ of mandamus to enforce minimum wages for mine workers. The court held that the remedy for non-payment of minimum wages lies under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a trade union, can maintain a writ petition for enforcement of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, when an alternative remedy under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is available.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Minimum Wages Act
- 1948
- Payment of Wages Act
- 1936
- alternative remedy
- writ jurisdiction
- trade union
- enforcement of labour laws
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 107
WRIT PETITION NO. 620/2015
F.M. REIS, NUTAN D. SARDESSAI
Shri Thalman Pereira (for petitioner), Shri Mahesh Amonkar (for respondents 1-2), Shri Parag Rao (for respondents 3-4), Shri Anand R. Pai (for respondents 5,7), Shri R.S. Pai and Shri Prasanna Chawdikar (for respondents 8-9), Shri Govind Kamat (for respondent 10)
Secretary (Labour), Government of India; Regional Labour Commissioner (Central); Mines Manager, Huldool Dongor Bimbol Iron More Mines; Managing Director, Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd.; Proprietor, M/s. Vishwaroop Enterprises; Mines Manager, M/s. N.S. Narvekar Mines-Kalay; Managing Director, M/s. Machado & Sons Agents & Stevedores Pvt. Ltd.; Mines Manager, Cuddegal Voril Soddo Mines; Managing Director, M/s. Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd.; Managing Director, M/s. Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondents to implement and enforce the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and ensure payment of minimum wages to mine workers.
Filing Reason
Alleged non-payment of minimum wages to mine workers by the respondent mine owners and managers.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the workers were not being paid minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Respondents (mine owners) raised preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable as an alternative remedy under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is available.
Ratio Decidendi
The Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides an alternative efficacious remedy for enforcement of payment of wages, including minimum wages, and therefore a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Shri Thalman Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Shri Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 and 4, Shri Anand R. Pai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 and 7, Shri R.S. Pai and Shri Prasanna Chawdikar, Advocates for the respondents No.8 & 9, Shri Govind Kamat, Advocate for the respondents No. 10.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The court heard the preliminary objection and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948:
- Payment of Wages Act, 1936:
