1 CGHC010214292024 2026:CGHC:30011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 154 of 2024 T. R. Barik Deepak, S/o Rameshwar Barik Aged About 44 Years State Coordinator/ Chairman, Rural Literacey Service Institute, Office- Akashwani Chowk, Behind Old Emoloyment Office, Barik House, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Rajdulare Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Jawalpur, Tahsil- Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Applicant) 2 - The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Khilendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition, seeking the following relief:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and by dismissing the application under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as not maintainable. 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, the Act, 1936) before the learned Labour Court, Janjgir, claiming therein wages on the ground that respondent No.1 worked under the petitioner from 27.3.2017 till 14.01.2019 as a Trainer, but he was not paid adequate wages. He was paid only Rs. 87,000/- out of 2,64,000/-. He would further submit that petitioner filed a reply to the said application. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of application moved u/s. 15 of the Act, 1936 before the learned Labour Court. He would also submit that the learned Labour Court, vide order dated 23.4.2024, rejected the application filed by the petitioner, on the ground that the grounds raised in the application do not come within the parameters of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the grounds raised by the respondent No.1 in the application under Section 15 of the Act, 1936 before the learned Labour Court involved mixed questions of law and fact; thus, the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was righlty rejected by the learned Labour Court; thus, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5. The plaint or an application can be rejected according to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, if it does not disclose a cause of action; the relief claimed is undervalued, the plaint/application is not properly stamped, or the suit/application appears to be barred by limitation. 6. Section 15 of the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “15. Wages of worker who works for less than normal working day.— If an employee whose minimum rate of wages has been fixed under this Act by the day works on any day on which he was employed for a period of less than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal working day, he shall, save as otherwise hereinafter provided, be entitled to receive wages in respect of work done by him on that day as if he had worked for a full normal working day:Provided, however, that he shall not be entitled to receive wages for a full normal working day
(I) in any case where his failure to work is caused by his unwillingness to work and not by the omission of the employer to provide him with work, and (ii) in such other cases and circumstances as may be prescribed.” 7. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that if a worker fixed under the Minimum Wages Act works under the employer, he generally would be entitled to wages for a full day. However, he will not get full-day wages if he did not work. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any reason as to why respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim minimum wages admissible to him. 9. Section 15 of the Act of 1948 does not create a bar to entertain an application under Section 15 of the Act of 1936, therefore also, the 4 learned Labour Court rightly rejected the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 10. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, no case is made out. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. 11.Interim relief granted earlier is also hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim