IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 8853 of 2026 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaustav Banerjee. For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Nayan Rakshit, Mr. Md. Idrish. For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sannidhya Datta, Mr. Antarik Dawn. For the Union of India : Mr. Subrata Roy, Mr. Sushil Kr. Mishra. Judgment reserved on : 13.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 14.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to recall the order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the Respondent no.3, being the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, the authority under the minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2 2. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned Senior Counsel has brought the notice of this Court to the impugned order wherein, it appears that the authority concerned has stated that Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has ceased to be in operation with the implementation of the Code on Wages, 2019, and held as follows:- “Is Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) an undertaking of the government of India? The answer is Yes. SAIL is a Maharatna, Schedule 'A' Company under the administrative control of Ministry of Steel, Govt. of India. At present government of India holds 65% of its equity shareholding. SAIL may or may not be a corporation established by a central Act, yet it is still carried on under the authority of the central government/Ministry of Steel. Accordingly, Central Government is the Appropriate Government in relation any Scheduled Employments of SAIL under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Under section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 it is the responsibility of the Appropriate Government to fix the rate of wages. Hence, Central rate of Minimum Wages is applicable in SAIL. Not all employments in SAIL are scheduled employment and in respect of nonscheduled employment Minimum Wages Act 1948 itself is not applicable. However, as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, published in Gazette of India vide Notification No.S.O.192 (E) dated 19.01.2017 Warehouse is a Scheduled Employment under Loading unloading Category. Thus, labourers employed in SAIL 3 Warehouses are covered under Central Minimum Wages rate” 3. Mr. Majumder relies upon the following judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Versus National Union Waterfront Workers And Ors, dated 30.08.2001, (2001) 7 SCC, wherein the Supreme Court held:- “39. There cannot be any dispute that all the Central Government companies with which we are dealing here are not and cannot be equated to the Central Government though they may be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. We have held above that being the instrumentality or agency of the Central Government would not by itself amount to having the authority of the Central Government to carry on that particular industry. Therefore, it will be incorrect to say that in relation to any establishment of a Central Government company/undertaking, the appropriate Government will be the Central Government. To hold that the Central Government is "the appropriate Government" in relation to an establishment, the court must be satisfied that the particular industry in question is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. If this aspect is kept in mind it would be clear that the Central Government will be the "appropriate Government" under the CLRA Act and the ID Act provided the industry in question is carried on by a Central Government company/an undertaking under the authority of the Central Government. Such an authority may be conferred, either by a statute or by virtue of the relationship of principal and agent or 4 delegation of power. Where the authority, to carry on any industry for or on behalf of the Central Government, is conferred on the government company/any undertaking by the statute under which it is created, no further question arises. But, if it is not so, the question that arises is whether there is any conferment of authority on the government company/any undertaking by the Central Government to carry on the industry in question. This is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts and in the circumstances of each case.” “127. The order of the High Court at Calcutta, under challenge, insofar as it relates to holding that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of the CLRA Act, is confirmed but the direction that the contract labour shall be absorbed and treated on a par with the regular employees of the appellants, is set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part.” 4. The Court while deciding the issue laid down the following test to determine the criteria as to decide, “The Appropriate Government” relating to an establishment:- “…………….Further, the definition of "establishment" in the CLRA Act takes in its fold purely private undertakings which cannot be brought within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. All the Central Government companies involved in the instant cases are not and cannot be equated to the Central Government though they may be "State" within the meaning of Article 12………………. 5 [Paras 38, 39, and 46] “Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government. [Paras 125(1)(a)]” “After 28-1-1986, in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the said question is to be found in Section 2(a) of the ID Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (iii) the industry is a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in 6 which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government. [Paras 125(1)(b)]” 5. In Nashik Workers Union Versus Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 224, decided on 26.02.2016, the Supreme Court held:- “32. In the case at hand, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the decision in HAL 24 can be regarded as a binding precedent. As is noticeable, HAL 24 has not taken note of the earlier decision in HAL 16. It has been clearly held in HAL 16 that regard being had to the dictionary clause of the ID Act for the purpose of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., it is the State Government which has to make the reference. In HAL 24 the Court has referred to the decision in SAIL case and opined that it is undisputed that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an undertaking of the Central Government and it is the Central Government which exercises full control over the same and, therefore, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. This analysis runs counter to HAL 16 and as well the ratio of the decision in SAIL case³. On the contrary there is no discussion either on the facts or the law. It has been opined that the facts are "undisputed". 33. In HAL 16, the three-Judge Bench had referred to the decision in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union. As has been held in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union's, the authority in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union has been approved in SAIL³ with some divergence. The authority in SAIL case³, as the conclusion would show, covers two situations the unamended provision and the amended provision. It does not disturb the 7 principles stated in HAL 16. Thus, two aspects, first. HAL 24 does not take note of HAL 16 and second, it proceeds on the basis of undisputed facts which are not stated. It is to be noted that there is nothing in the order in HAL 24 to suggest that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an agent of the Central Government. 34. In our considered opinion, as HAL 24 has not noticed HAL 16 which has been approved in SAIL case³, it cannot be considered as a binding precedent. Therefore, we hold that HAL1 still holds good and lays down the correct law and we are bound by it as its foundation flows from Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union which has been approved in SAIL³ with some divergence as has been stated in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union 18. Be it stated, that divergence really does not affect the approval. We have no hesitation in our mind that HAL 24 cannot be regarded as a binding precedent. Ergo, it is clear that the Division Bench of the High Court has not applied the ratio in SAIL case³ correctly and, therefore, the entire analysis has to be held to be fallacious. 35. The controversy does not end there. It is perceptible that the High Court has not adverted to the merits of the case and dismissed LPA No. 144 of 2002 on the ground that it did not survive after dismissal of LPA No. 84 of 2006. As we have set aside the order passed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Nashik Workers Union' and opined that the "appropriate Government" in relation to the respondent Company is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.” 8 6. Thus, it prima facie appears from the judgments relied upon by Mr. Majumder, that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of CLRA Act. (National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.(Supra). 7. In course of hearing the parties have filed their respective written notes. Petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:- (i) Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1 (paras 39, 127); (ii) Nashik Workers Union vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (2016) 6 SCC 224 (Paras 32-34); (iii) Mr. Prashob Balakrishnan P. vs. The Senior Labour Inspector, Bangalore (2013) 138 FLR 500 (paras 19, 21 and 22). 8. The specific case of the petitioner herein is that Steel Authority of India has a stockyard at Durgapur. At the said stockyard, loading, unloading and storage of steel products manufactured by SAIL are the activities. The said premises has been registered as a “shop” within the meaning of the Section 2(13) of the West Bengal Shops & Establishments Act, 1963. 9. SAIL had invited an open tender for managing the said warehouse/establishment including handling steel materials, inter alia, specifying that minimum rates of 9 wages notified/declared by the State Government would be payable. All over India, State Government notified minimum rates of wages are paid at warehouse or godowns of SAIL. 10. By a letter dated 12.01.2026, the Conciliation Officer being the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) had initiated conciliation under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 over the issue of charter of demands with regard to wage disparity in the treatment of contractor at Dankuni and Durgapur. 11. Such conciliation ended in failure and the Conciliation Officer advised the union to raise industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. 12. The union having elected a course of action towards raising of an industrial dispute over the charter of demand issues, ought to have reasonably pursued such elected avenue and explored the jurisdiction under the I.D. Act, 1947. However, by a claim application dated 12.2.2026, union had raised claim for minimum wages at the central rate before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, i.e. the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central). The claim was the difference between Central Government notified minimum rates of wages and the State Government notified minimum rates of wages. Although the claim application was for 45 persons, there were 38 employees deputed as per tender. 10 13. SAIL had submitted its reply dated 02.03.2026, inter alia, contending that the State Government notified minimum rates of wages would apply since SAIL is neither incorporated as a statutory body nor created by any Act of Parliament. 14. By an order dated 25.3.2026, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, directed SAIL, to pay the difference between the Central and the State Government notified minimum rates of wages on the following reasons:- (a) Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sports Authority of India; (b) Reliance was placed upon the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at (2007)15 SCC 51; (c) Government of India holds 65% of equity shares of SAIL. On the aforesaid consideration, the Authority directed the difference to be paid along with 100% of the differential amount as compensation. 15. Petitioner submits that the impugned order is perverse and warrants quashment on the following grounds:- (i) No evidence was laid by any of the parties to the case; (ii) Wrong test was applied by the Authority by relying upon overruled judgment in HAL's case; (iii) Not following the dicta of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAIL's case itself. 11 16. The employees are of the contractor. The contractor has complete authority and discretion to deploy these employees in any establishment including a private party. For instance if a contractor deploys its employees in the warehouse of SAIL for part of a month and subsequently deploys them to a private corporate body (XYZ) then for part of the month such employees would be entitled to minimum wages of the Central Government rate and for rest of the month minimum wages for the State Government rate. This will be a dichotomous and inconsistent situation for the employees service condition which would be vacillating and there will be no defined condition of service for the employees of the contractor. Even if the employment is scheduled; unless the same is carried on by or under the authority of Central Government; the same cannot be said to be of any assistance to the employees. SAIL is a body corporate and is not the Central Government by itself. Hence, such part of the enabling provision in the MW act would not apply in respect of a body corporate which is merely a Central Government undertaking. 17. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner submits that the impugned order should be set aside. 18. The respondent no. 5 the Trade Union has filed it’s written notes and argued stating that on 12.02.2026 the SAIL Stock Yard Durgapur Thika Shramik Union raised dispute for payment of M.W. against the respondents M/s. Express Ways 12 (respondent no. 1) and the General Manager Sales and Branch Manager, SAIL Durgapur Warehouse (respondent no. 2). 19. The workmen supplied by the said Shramik Union have received less wages from the rate of M.W. fixed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India under Notification No. S.O. 192(E) dated 19.01.2017. 20. As per the prayers of the respondent No. 5. Union two issues were cropped up in the proceeding as follows:- (i) For payment of Due wages amounting to Rs. 97,56,111/- in respect of 45 workers. (ii) Ten times compensation amounting to Rs.9,75,61,110/-. 21. Final hearing of the matter was done on 11.03.2026 in presence of the applicant and both the respondents’ representatives. 22. The workmen were engaged in the SAIL Warehouse for loading and unloading category of work. 23. They have been paid the less M.W. by not following the notification of the Govt. of India, Labour Department dated 19.01.2017. 24. That the same contractor was paying higher to the workers in SAIL Warehouses in the other establishments. 25. The Contractor had started their work before six (6) months of their tender which was issued on April 2023. Accordingly, the claim is being raised from October, 2022 to December, 2025. 13 26. That the workers have been working in the establishment since, 2013 under different contractors and they have always received less than Central minimum rate of wages. As the workmen could not produce the details of their works under different contractors since 2013 and they have come to the RLC (Central) with details of their works under the respondent No.1 where they are working since October, 2022 to December, 2025, So their claims should be limited to this period only. 27. Finally, the Union submits that the SAIL cannot violate the principle of natural justice as delegated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the fundamental rights of the workmen may kindly be protected and they should be treated at par with the workmen of Dankuni Warehouse Stockyard under SAIL. Hence, the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost. 28. From the materials on record, the following is evident:- i. The Respondent-1 (Contractor) submitted that they were awarded work by SAIL, Warehouse/Branch Sales Office, under Tender No. Durgapur SAIL/CMO/HC/DURGAPUR/2022/03 dated 27.09.2022, pursuant to which Work Order dated 06/10/2022 was issued. That during this contract, the labourers were paid minimum wages notified by the government of West Bengal and complied with all statutory obligations. 14 ii. Thereafter SAIL floated a fresh tender and it was awarded to them tender No. SAIL/CMO/HC/DURGAPUR/2022/02 and work order was issued on 30.03.2023 for a tenure of four years and six months. That the rates quoted by SAIL in the said tender were strictly based on the condition that minimum wages as notified by the government of West Bengal shall be paid to the labourers. iii. The work performed by the labourers is of loading and unloading of materials in the warehouse and stockyard. That as per the government of West Bengal Labour Commissionerate Circular regarding minimum wages, the said work falls under Scheduled Employment SI. No 22- "Loading and Unloading Operations". (Clause 5.8 in the tender). iv. The labourers have always been paid the state minimum wages. v. That SAIL is a PSU incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act. SAIL has not been constituted or established by a specific Act of Parliament and is therefore not a statutory corporation created through a separate Parliamentary enactment. On 24th January, 1973 SAIL was officially incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. 15 vi. Appropriate Government under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is reproduced as under Section 2 (b) of Minimum Wages Act 1948 defines Appropriate Government as:- (i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the central government or a railway administration or in relation to a mine, oilfields of major port, or any corporation established by a central Act, - the central government. (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the state government. 29. The respondent/employees herein are employed through contractors. 30. In National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court in Para 127 held:- “………..the West Bengal Government is the appropriate government within the meaning of CLRA Act”. 31. The employees are paid through contractors, who admittedly supply contract labour at various establishments, operating within a State. 32. As the contract labours are admittedly engaged through contractors within a State, for the work carried out within the said State, the West Bengal Government in the present case is the appropriate Government in respect of the petitioner’s Warehouse/Branch Sales Office, Durgapur, as awarded by a tender to the contractor herein. 16 33. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to that effect in National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (Supra) supports the said fact. 34. Thus being under the State Government as the appropriate Government in respect of CLRA Act, the State Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the employees (Contract Labours) of the petitioner herein. 35. There was absolutely no reason for the respondent no. 3 to pass the impugned order dated 25th March, 2026 differing from the established application of the State Minimum Wages Act in the present case, when there was no change in circumstances and status of the petitioner company. 36. WPA 8853 of 2026 is thus allowed. 37. The order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the Respondent no.3, being the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, is set aside. 38. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 39. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 40. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)