http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MANGANANESE ORE (INDIA) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANDI LAL SAHA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  520            1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 533  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 465 JT 1991 (1)    47  1990 SCALE  (2)902

ACT:     Minimum Wages Act,  1948: Sections 2(h), 3(1)(a),4 &  11 Manganese   Mines--Workers--Minimum  Wages--Monetary   value grain  supplied  at concessional rates anti amount  paid  as attendance bonus to workers--Whether can be treated as  wage in kind deducted from the minimum wages.     ‘Grain   concession’  and   ‘Attendance   bonus’--Nature of--Difference  between  Incentive bonus  and  Minimum  wage explained.     Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947: Section  33C(2):  Labour Court--Jurisdiction of--Application for recovery of  deficit amount of minimum wages--Whether barred by section 20 of the Minitaunt Wages Act, 1948.

HEADNOTE:     The  Government of India by a notification issued  under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixed the minimum rates of wages payable  to different categories of employees of the  Manga- nese  Mines. The appellant Company was paying minimum  wages to its workers. Besides it was also paying to its  employees attendance bonus and Was supplying grain to them at  conces- sional  rates. But the appellant was deducting Out of  their wages  the  monetary value of the grain concession  and  the attendance  bonus.  The  workers of  the  appellant  Company working  at Nagpur (Maharashtra) and Balaghat  (Madhya  Pra- desh) filed applications under section 33C(2) of the  Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Courts at  Nagpur and at Jabalpur for recovery of the deficit. amOUnt of wages due  to them from the appellant. The appellant  opposed  the applications  on  the ground that the minimum wage  Was  all inclusive wage which included the cash value of gram conces- sion and attendance bonus.      The  Labour Court, Nagpur, allowed the applications  of the workers by holding that the monetary value of the  grain supplied ‘at concessional rate or the amount paid as attend- ance  bonus could not be counted towards the  minimum  wage. But  the Labour Court, Jabalpur partly allowed the  applica- tions of the workers and decided the issue regarding 534 the  supply  of concessional grain against  the  workmen  by holding  that  the appellant was entitled to  add  the  cash

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

value  of the grain-concessional for computing  the  minimum wage. The workmen did not challenge the order of the  Labour Court,  Jabalpur but the appellant challenged the orders  of both the Labour Courts by filling writ petitions in the High Court  of  Bombay and Madhya Pradesh. Both the  High  Courts dismissed the writ petitions.     In appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf  of the  appellants;  (1) that the notification  fixing  minimum wage  being  all inclusive it would include  the  amount  of bonus  attendance  and the monetary  value  of  concessional grain; (ii) since the grain concession and attendance  bonus were  benefits  which could be computed in money  they  were remuneration within the definition of ‘wages’ under  section 2(h)  of the Act; and (iii) in view of the  provisions  con- tained  in  Section 20 of the Minimum Wages  Act,  1948  the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under section 33C(2) of the Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 to proceed with the  applica- tions for recovery of deficit amount of minimum wages. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  1. Section 11(i) of the Minimum Wages  Act,  1948 lays down that the minimum wages payable under the Act shall be  paid  in cash. Sub-sections 2 and 3 of  section  11  are exceptions  to the mandate contained in section 11(1).  Sec- tion 4(1)(iii) and section 4(2) have to be read with section 11  of the Act. Section 4(1)(iii) mentions only  such  "cash value  of the concession" as has been authorised  "wages  in kind" under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act. There- fore,  there  cannot  be a wage in kind unless  there  is  a notification  by  the appropriate Government  under  section 11(3)  of  the Act. It is only  the  appropriate  Government which can authorise wages partly in kind. In the absence  of any notification by the appropriate Govt. for the supply  of essential  commodities at concessional rates the cash  value of  such concessions cannot be treated as wage in  kind  and cannot  be deducted from the minimum wages which have to  be paid in cash under section 11(1) of the Act. In the  instant case  there being no notification by appropriate  Government under  section  11(3) of the Act the appellant  cannot  take advantage from para 2 of the notification or from provisions of section 4(1)(m) of the Act.     2. The scheme of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948  recognises "wages"  as  defined under section 2(h) and also  "wages  in kind"  under section 11 of the Act. Reading both the  provi- sions together "wages in 535 kind"  can only become part of the wages if  the  conditions provided  under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section  11 of  the Act are complied with. Since there was no  notifica- tion  by the Central Government under section 11(3)  of  the Act  the  supply of grain at a concessional rate  cannot  be considered "wages" under section 2(h) of the Act.     2.1. The managements of public sector undertakings which are  bound by Director Principles of State Policy  enshrined under  Part IV of the Constitution must endeavour to  secure for  their workmen apart from "wages" other amenities  also. These  amenities may be capable of being expressed in  terms of  money  but it is clear from the scheme  of  the  Minimum Wages  Act, 1948 that these concessions do not  come  within the  meaning of "wages" under section 2(h) of the  Act.  The supply  of grain at concessional rate to the workers  is  in the  nature of an amenity or an additional  facility/service and  cannot be included in the rates of wages prescribed  by the notification.     2.2.  There is a basic difference between the  incentive bonus  and  the minimum wage. Every workman is  entitled  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

minimum  wage  from the very first day of  his  joining  the employment whereas the bonus has to be earned and it becomes payable after the event. In the instant case the  attendance bonus  was payable after regular attendance for a  specified period and remaining loyal to the management. The scheme  of payment of attendance bonus was thus an incentive to  secure regular  attendance  of the workmen. It  was  an  additional payment made to the workmen as a means of increasing produc- tion. Therefore, the attendance bonus is in the nature of an incentive and it cannot be treated as part of minimum  wages under the Act.     Titaghur  Paper  Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its  Workmen,  [1959] S.C.R. Suppl. (2) 1012; followed.     3. The Minimum Wages Act is concerned with the fixing of rates  of minimum wages. Under Section 20(1) of the  Minimum Wages  Act in which provision is made for seeking remedy  in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than  mini- mum  rates  the Authority is to  exercise  jurisdiction  for deciding  claims which relate to rates of wages.  The  power under section 20(3) of the Act given to the Authority  deal- ing  with an application under section 20(1) to direct  pay- ment  of the actual amount found due, is only an  incidental power  for  working  out effectively  the  directions  under section  20(1) fixing various rates under the Act. That  is, if there is no dispute as to rates between the employer  and the  employee and the only question is whether a  particular payment at 536 the  agreed  rate is due or not, then s. 20(1)  of  the  Act would  not be attracted at all, and the  appropriate  remedy would only be either under s. 15(1) of the payment of  Wages Act or under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.     3.1. In the instant 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 jurisdic- tion  under section 33C(2) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947.     Town  Municipal  Council, Athani v.  Presiding  Officer, Labour Court, HubIi & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 51; followed.     [Notwithstanding  the fact that the order of the  Labour Court Jabalpur  became final, the Supreme Court invoked  its powers  under Article 142 of the Constitution of  India  and directed  that the benefit of this judgment he  extended  to the workmen of the appellant in the State of Madhya Pradesh. ]

JUDGMENT: