Full Judgment
1 W.P No.12235/2005 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.12235/2005 PETITIONER : RAM PRASAD SONI Vs. RESPONDENTS : AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND OTHERS. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha. For the petitioner : Shri R. N. Shukla, Sr. Counsel with Shri R. B. Tiwari, Advocate. For respondent No.3 : Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(25/07/2013) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Khandwa under the Payment of Wages Act, in Case No.11/95 and the order passed by the Member Judge, Industrial Court, Indore on 7.7.2005.
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, before the competent authority stating that the respondents had not paid him arrears of Variable Dearness Allowance while making payment of wages to him not was the requisite bonus disbursed to him. The Labour Court, after adducing the evidence and analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, 2 W.P No.12235/2005 passed the order dated 16.8.2002 dismissing the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of arrears of Variable Dearness Allowance and other allowances but allowed the claim of the petitioner as far as it related to Bonus by ordering payment of a sum of Rs.11,582/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved, had filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, Indore which was also dismissed by order dated 7.7.2005, hence this petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to Wages and Variable Dearness Allowance in terms of the notification dated 5.2.1997 issued by the State Government under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but the respondents in fact reduced the pay and allowances admissible to the petitioner and in such circumstances the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as the aforesaid aspect has not been considered.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3, per contra, submits that the payment of wages, etc. were being made to the petitioner in accordance with the notification issued by the State Government and that the Courts' below have rightly held as such and, therefore, the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 3 W.P No.12235/2005 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court have taken into consideration the statements of Management's witness Shri Raghuvansh Bahadur Mathur and Shri Arvind Prakash Saxena as well as Exhibits D-3 to D-7 produced by them to record a finding to the effect that the petitioner was being paid wages as well as Variable Dearness Allowance; that a sum of Rs.19,405.25 was paid to the petitioner on 31.3.1995 which included the Variable Dearness Allowance and; that the petitioner was being paid Rs.1,325/- per month from December 1993 onwards which was more than the minimum wages notified and on the basis of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence has recorded a finding to the effect that the payment, being made to the petitioner, was in conformity with the notification issued by the State Government on 5.2.1997.
6. From a perusal of paras 4 & 5 of the aforesaid notification, it is further clear that after notification of the Minimum Wages any amount being paid by the employer, which was higher than the minimum wages, could not be reduced or recovered and that the sum total of the Minimum Wages and the Variable Dearness Allowance would not be less then the Minimum Wages 4 W.P No.12235/2005 notified. The aforesaid clauses also clarify that in case the sum total of the Wages plus the Variable Dearness Allowance being paid to an employee is more than the notified minimum wages, it would not be reduced but if it was less then the employee would be entitled to recover the differential amount.
7. In the instant case, as the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court, both recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner was being paid a consolidated amount comprising of the Wages and the Variable Dearness Allowance which was more than the Minimum Wages notified, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts' below have not committed any illegality or perversity in recording a finding against the petitioner and dismissed his claim.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. ( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE 25 07/2013 mms/-