1 2026:CGHC:16540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 143 of 2019 1 - M/s Speedo Cargo Through Shri Gurmeet Singh Hora (Prop.) Roop Shri Stores, Fafadih, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The General Secretary Chhattisgarh Hamal Mazdur Sangh Head Quarter Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Amedkar Chowk, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Authority Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Cum Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur Chhattisgarh, Add. D-6, Aadarsh Society, Sector - 1, Avanti Vihar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Regional Manager Central Ware Housing Corporation Cwc Complex, Rawanbhata, P.O. Birgaon, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1) That, the order dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No. Claim Case No. 09/M.W. Act/ 2018, by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) in case of The General Secretary Versus M/s. Speedo Cargo and others and show-cause notice dated30/05/2019 (Annexure P/5) be kindly quashed 10.2) That the cost of the proceedings be kindly awarded.” 2. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is Transporter, involved in Handling and -2- Transporter work of Food grains for various Government Agencies like Food Corporation of India, Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation Limited. He would further submit that the dispute with regard to claim of difference of wages raised by respondent No.1 before the authority relates to handling and transporting work of petitioner with respondent No.3. He would contend that respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before respondent No.2 on the ground that the workers are being paid less then minimum wages as such claim difference of amount of Rs.79,020/- for each of workman which comes to Rs.2,37,000.60/-. He would further contend that issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in batch of writ petitions leading case of which being WPL No.102 of 2024 parties being Managing Director and others Vs. Ramesh and others which was decided on 09.01.2025. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivatastava, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 would submit that it is a case where the workers were deprived of their wages what they were otherwise entitled for and in the given facts and circumstances of the case the Authority concerned cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction in any manner particularly taking note of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and thus prayed for the rejection of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. The private respondents/workmen moved an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 before the learned Labour Court for payment of wages. 6. 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. 7. In the present case, the private respondents/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 private respondents on incorrect legal premises approached the learned Labour Court under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 8. The issue in this regard is not rest integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha & ors. (1991 LAB I.C. 524) in para-17 held as under:- “17. In the present case there was no dispute regarding the rates of wages and it is admitted by the parties that the minimum rates of wages were fixed by the Government of India under the Act. The workmen demanded the minimum wages so fixed and the appellant denied the same to the workmen on extraneous considerations. Under the circumstances the remedy under Section 20 of the Act was not available to the workmen and the Labour Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” 9. The Co-Ordinate Bench in WPL No. 5940 of 2008 in the matter of Rayalseema Concrete Sleepers (P) Ltd. v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act & Regional Labour Commissioner and others passed on 02.01.2018 in para 10 held as under:- -4- “10. Subsequently, relying upon both the aforesaid judgments, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sri Binod Kumar Agrawal v. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Another, 1992 LAB I.C. 1303, has taken a similar stand wherein it has been held that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act under Section 20 is not empowered to decide the entitlement of the workers except for deciding the minimum wage which would be payable to a worker under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act and for all other claims of a worker the appropriate remedy has been decided to be either under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act or under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 10. In light of the authoritative decision referred to herein above and also taking note of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the rates of wages, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court while passing the order impugned exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby set-aside. 11. Leaving open the claim of the respondent-workers to get their grievances, if any, redressed before the appropriate forum, the present writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) stands quashed. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 13. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, shall stand vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha