Jagal Singh Vs. Bal Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
payment of wages act, 1936 - section 14 and rajasthan minimum wages rules, 1959--rules 23, 24-a (3) & 26(1)(a)--worker employed in agriculture--held, he is entitled to payment for overtime and weekly day of rest.;revision dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the question whether for this reason alone, a worker in employment in agriculture can be denied these wages for the over-time work as well as work on weekly day of rest taken from him by the employer.j.s. verma, c.j.1. this is an employer's revision arising out of a claim made by a workman under section 15(2) of the payment of wages act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the workman's claim was allowed by the authority under the payment of 'wages act and total sum of rs. 6,375/- was awarded. the learned district judge has affirmed that order in appeal. hence this revision.2. the amount of rs. 6,375/- awarded to the workman comprises of rs. 2,730/-as pay; rs. 2,730/- a over-time wages; rs. 390/- as wages for the weekly day of rest; rs. 500/- as compensation and rs. 25/- a costs. learned counsel for the petitioner challenges only the award of rs. 2,730/-over-time wages and rs. 390/- as wages for the weekly day of rest. reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on clause (5) of rule 23 and clause (3) of rule 24-a of the rajasthan minimum wages rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') in support of the contention that the wages for over-time and for the weekly day of rest cannot be awarded to a worker in employment in agriculture. it is argued that the worker in the present case being employed in agriculture, the provision made in rule 23 for wages being paid for the weekly day of rest and similarly in rule 24-a for over-time wages, do not apply to him. on this basis, it is urged that these amounts could not be awarded to the worker. i am unable to accept this contention.3. there is a clear finding and it is no longer in controversy that the workman did work over-time and he also worked on the weekly day of rest in lieu of which these wages have been awarded to him. no doubt, rule 23 which provides for the weekly day of rest as also rule 24-a which provides for maximum hours of work, indicate that these rules do not apply to any worker in employment in agriculture. the question whether for this reason alone, a worker in employment in agriculture can be denied these wages for the over-time work as well as work on weekly day of rest taken from him by the employer. in my opinion, acceptance of argument advanced on behalf of the employer in the present case would amount to judicial recognition of 'begar' which is contrary to article 23 of the constitution of india providing for prohibition of forced labour. reference to the directive principle contained in article 23 of the constitution is also significant in this context. accordingly, construction of these provisions of the rules, as suggested on behalf of the employer, may invalidate these to this extent. it is sufficient to say that even without the aid of these rules, the workman is entitled to the wages for over-lime and weekly day of rest awarded to him on general principles. the fact that he worked over-time and also on weekly day of rest had been found proved. wages for this period have been calculated at a rate which is not shown to be unreasonable. there is no prohibition shown in any statutary provision against grant of the amount to a worker in employment in agriculture. on the contrary rule 26(1)(a) indicates that extra wages for over-time have to be paid. in the present case, the award made under these heads to the workman being pre-eminently just and equitable and also in consonance with the prohibition against taking 'begar' contained in article 23 of the constitution of india.4. consequently, the revision is dismissed. as no one has appeared to oppose the revision, there shall be no order as to costs.