1 2025:CGHC:20123-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 281 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kavita Choure W/o Rahul Choure Aged About 52 Years R/o Budhha Vihar Street No. 1, Sector 6, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ramesh S/o Ramlu Aged About 25 Years R/o House No. 57, Ward No. 20, Street No. 18, Azad Mohalla, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Ahilya Bai W/o Telluchand Aged About 52 Years R/o Block No. L.C.-1/f, Labour Camp-1, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Nonabai W/o Budhram Aged About 46 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kumharpara, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Ram Ajaiyya S/o Chinnaiyya Aged About 48 Years R/o Block No. 1/a Street No. 60, Sector- 6 Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Managing Director Now Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Street Plant Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - District Education Officer Education Department Russian Complex Sector-7, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Principal B.S.P. High School, Sector-8 Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.06 11:43:25 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivang Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the respective respondents on I.A. No.02/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 36 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. I.A. No. 03/2025 i.e. application for permission to file joint writ petition in the present writ appeal is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No. 184 of 2024 (Managing Director and Others vs. Smt. Kavita Choure), WPL No. 102 of 2024 (Managing Director and Others vs. Ramesh), 3 WPL No. 185 of 2024 (Managing Director and Others vs. Smt. Ahilya Bai), WPL No. 188 of 2024 (Managing Director and Others vs. Smt. Nonabai) and WPL No. 190 of 2024 (Managing Director and Others vs. Ram Ajaiyya), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondents herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were employed by the respondent authorities in their school on the post of cleaner/sweeper to undertake cleaning of school building and toilets. The respondent No. 3 is the principal in the school owned and run by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 controls and manages the affairs of said school owned and run by Respondent No.1. The Appellants filed a petition invoking section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before learned Labour Court, Durg for determination of minimum rate of wages payable to the Appellants for the period December 2015 to June 2017. The said petition was decided by learned Labour Court, Durg vide order dated 15.12.2023, holding that there exist a dispute between parties with respect to fixation of minimum rates of wages for which Appellants are found to be eligible. The fixation of minimum rate of wages payable to Appellants for the period from December 2015 to June 2017, shall be determined by applying Government policy prevailing at that point in time. The respondent authorities being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Labour Court, Durg preferred several writ petition 4 registered as WPL No. 184 of 2024, WPL 102 of 2024, WPL 185 of 2024, WPL 188 of 2024 and WPL 190 of 2024. The said writ petitions came to be decided vide impugned common order dated 09.01.2025. The learned Single Judge vide impugned common order dated 09.01.2025 has been pleased to allow the writ petition filed by respondent authorities on an absolutely wrong premise. The learned Single Judge vide impugned common order dated 09.01.2025 has been pleased to observe that the dispute between parties is amenable to jurisdiction under 33-(C) 2 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Single Judge has come to a completely erroneous finding that Labour Court, Durg while passing order dated 15.12.2023 has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred upon the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by learned Labour Court leaving open the claims of appellants to get their grievance redressed before appropriate forum. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Appellants have rightly filed application under section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before Labour Court, Durg for determination of minimum wages payable for the period December 2015 to June 2017 and also failed to consider that the Appellants filed application before Labour Court, Durg for determination of wages as per applicable policy. The learned Single Judge has come to erroneous finding in paragraph 5 8 of the impugned common judgement that the Appellants claimed wages and there was no dispute with regard to the difference between the minimum wages and wages which were being paid to the Appellants. The leaned Labour Court, Durg has itself observed in paragraph 31 of judgment dated 15.12.2023 that there exist a dispute between parties with respect to fixation of minimum rates of wages for which Appellants are found to be eligible. The fixation of minimum rate of wages payable to Appellants for the period from December 2015 to June 2017, shall be determined by applying Government policy prevailing at that point in time. Since there existed a dispute with respect to fixation of minimum rates of wages payable to the Appellant, the application under section 20 is clearly maintainable. The learned Single Judge ought to have call for the original records from learned Labour Court to ascertain the claims of the Appellants but, the learned Single Judge without perusing the records has come to an erroneous finding in paragraph 8 and 11 of the impugned common judgement holding that the petition under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not maintainable and learned Labour Court while passing the order dated 15.12.2023 has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred upon the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the pleadings made in the writ petitions and failed to consider that, in the first round of litigation 6 before learned Labour Court, Durg, the Respondent authorities did not take any objection to the maintainability of application filed under section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and also failed to consider that the Respondent authorities in the second round of litigation before this Hon'ble Court have consciously not taken objection in any of the writ petition as to the maintainability of the application filed under section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, in absence of any pleading to this effect, the learned Single Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to the erroneous finding that application under section 20 of Minimum Wages Act was not maintainable before Labour Court Durg. Also, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by Labour Court Durg, granted liberty to the Appellant to get her grievances redressed before appropriate forum. This essentially means an application under section 33- C(2) of Industrial Disputes act will lie before Labour Court, Durg, for the identical purpose. Therefore, applying the principle that merely mention of wrong nomenclature of petition would not rob off the jurisdiction of a Court, in case, it otherwise has jurisdiction to try the matter, learned Labour Court, Durg had jurisdiction to hear the application filed by Appellant. The learned Single Judge has wrongly relied on the two judgment passed in the matter Magnese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha & Ors. (1991 LAB I.C. 524) and WPL No. 5940 of 2008 in the matter between Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. v. Authority under 7 Minimum Wages act & Regional Labour Commissioner and Others. The facts and ratio laid down in both the cases relied upon by learned Single Judge are completely distinguishable and said judgments does not operate field of law in the given facts and circumstance of case. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the dispute with regard to the difference between the minimum wages and wages which were being paid to the Appellants still persists. An application under Payment of Wages Act or Industrial Disputes Act as suggested by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, is not maintainable until minimum wages rates as claimed by the Appellants is agreed between by the parties herein. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondents herein, in which, no interference is called for. He further submits that issue in question has been lingering on since 2011-12 and earlier also, petitions bearing WPL No. 35 of 2012 along with bunch of matters were filed, which were decided in favour of the respondents herein by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.07.2015 observing as follows:- “14.Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Balwant Rai Saluja (supra) and NALCO (supra), in the facts of the present cases, it is to be seen that the 8 workmen were never appointed by the SAIL/BSP. Their salary/wages/remuneration was paid by the Parent Teacher Association. There is no pleading by the workmen nor any material to suggest that the BSP/SAIL has any authority to dismiss or take any disciplinary action against them. The SAIL/BSP may run or control the school and the PTA but there was no direct control or supervision over the workmen who were reporting to the school and not to the management of the SAIL/BSP. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that there does not exist any employer-employee or master- servant relationship between the management of the SAIL/BSP and the workmen.” 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that against the above order, writ appeals bearing WA No. 372 of 2015 with bunch of matters were filed, which were dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2015, against which, review petitions bearing REVP No. 15 of 2017 with bunch of matter were filed, which were also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.02.2017 and against which, a petitioner went to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. As such, since the matter has already been dealt by this Court in brief time and again, hence no interference is sought in the present case. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ 9 petitioners observing that the workmen / appellants herein moved an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the learned Labour Court for payment of wages. Section 20 of the Act, 1948 states that a workman who is getting less payment of wages than the minimum rate of wages may approach the authorities for his grievance. In the present case, the workmen claimed wages and there was no dispute with regard to the difference between the minimum wages and wages which were being paid to the workmen, therefore, the workmen on incorrect legal premises approached the learned Labour Court under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi lal Saha & Ors. (1991 LAB I.C. 524) and in the matter of Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act & Regional Labour Commissioner and others passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WPL No. 5940 of 2008 passed on 02.01.2018 and has concluded that taking note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the rates of wages, the learned Labour Court while passing the orders exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, the orders were set-aside leaving open the claim(s) of the workers to get their grievances, if any, redressed before the appropriate forum. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the 10 parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondents herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons and further, the issue in question has been lingering on since 2011-12 and earlier also, petitions bearing WPL No. 35 of 2012 along with bunch of matters were filed, which were decided in favour of the respondents herein by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.07.2015, against which, writ appeals bearing WA No. 372 of 2015 with bunch of matters were filed, which were dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2015, against which, review petitions bearing REVP No. 15 of 2017 with bunch of matter were filed, which were also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.02.2017. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the law. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet