http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: PATEL ISWAERBHAI PRAHLDBHAI ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1983

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA TULZAPURKAR, V.D. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR  336            1983 SCR  (2) 322  1983 SCC  (1) 403        1983 SCALE  (1)85

ACT:      Minimum Wages Act, 1948-Government servants employed in ’scheduled  employment’   under  local   authorities-Whether entitled to benefits under the Act ?

HEADNOTE:      The Minimum  Wages Inspector  of  Mehsana  District  in Gujarat  filed   applications  before   the  Minimum   Wages Authority praying  for directions  for payment  of  overtime wages to  four tubewell  operators  working  in  Taluka  and District Panchayats on the ground that they had been made to work for  more hours  than what  was  prescribed  under  the Minimum Wages  Act, 1948.  The said  Authority dismissed the applications holding  that though employment in any District Panchayat or  Taluka Panchayat was ’scheduled employment’ as per s.  2 (g)  of the  Act, the tubewell operators concerned being Government  servants in  Panchayat  Service  were  not entitled to claim minimum wages under the Act. The revisions filed against  the orders of the Authority were dismissed by tho High Court.      Allowing tho appeals, ^      HELD: Section 3 of the Act provides for the appropriate government  fixing   minimum  rates   of  wages  payable  to employees employed in an employment specified in Parts I and 11 of  the Schedule.  Section 2  (i) defines  ’employee’  as meaning any  person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work  in a  ’scheduled employment’. Section 2(g) defines ’Scheduled employment’ as meaning an employment specified in the Schedule  and "Employment  under any local authority" is included as item 6 of tho schedule. [326 B-G]      ’Employer’ under s. 2 (e) being "any person who employs whether directly  or through  another person,  or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any  scheduled employment  in respect  of  which  minimum wages have  been fixed  under the  Act" the Panchayats under which the  tubewell  operators  concerned  are  employed  in scheduled employment would be ’employers’ under the Act even though the  tubewell operators are Government servants, for,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

under sub-s.  (2) of  s. 102  of the  Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961, a  Secretary of  a Gram  Panchayat or  Nagar Panchayat shall, subject  to the  control of the Sarpanch or Chairman, as the case may be, perform the duties mentioned in cls. (a) (b) (c) and (d) thereof and, 323 under sub-s.  (3) of that section, the other servants of the Panchayats shall  perform  such  functions  and  duties  and exercise such  powers under  the Act  as may  be imposed  or conferred on them by the Panchayat subject to rules, if any, made in  that behalf.  Therefore, there can be no doubt that the tubewell  operators concerned  in  these  appeals,  even though State Government servants, are employed in ’scheduled employment’ under the local authority or authorities and are consequently entitled  to minimum  wages and  other benefits under the Act.[326 H, 327 A-D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATTE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals No. 127- 130 of 1975.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 15th  October, 1974 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Appln. Nos. 1434-1437 of 1973.      V.M. Tarkunde. Naresh Kumar Sharma and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.      D.V. Patel,  C.V. Subba  Rao, Dy.  Govt. Advocate, M.N. Shroff, G.N.  Desal, R.N.  Poddar and  R.H. Dhebar  for  the Respondent (State).      P.H. Parekh for Respondents 1 and 2.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VARADARAJAN, J.  These appeals  by  special  leave  are directed, against  the judgment of the learned Chief Justice (B.J. Diwan)  of the  Gujarat High  Court in  Civil Revision Application Nos.  1434 to 1437 of 1973. Those Civil Revision Applications (hereinafter  referred to  as ’Revisions’) were preferred against  the judgment  of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Vijapur  as the authority appointed under s. 20(i) of the  Minimum Wages  Act, 1948 for Vijapur Taluka in Civil Misc. Applications  Nos. 1 and 2 of 1970 and 1 and 2 of 1971 (hereinafter  referred   to  as  ’applications’).  The  four Revisions raised  a common question of law and were disposed of by a common judgment.      The applications  before the  Minimum  Wages  Authority were filed  by the  Gujarat Government  Labour  officer  and Minimum Wages  Inspector for  Mehsana district  against  the Taluka Development  officer,  Vijapur  Taluka  and  District Development officer  (Panchayat) Mehsana.  The Minimum Wages Inspector contended  in those  applications  that  the  four employees, Ishwerbhai 324 Prahladbhai, Dayabhai  Umeddass, Kanjibhai  Shankarbhai  and Nathalal Maganlal,  working  in  the  Taluka  Panchayat  and District Panchayat  as Tube-well  operators at  Delva da and Vihar villages,  fall within  the Minimum  Wages  Act,  1948 (hereinafter referred  to as the ’Act’) and had been made to work for  more hours  than what  is prescribed under the Act and they were entitled to over-time wages of Rs. 3018.40 and Rs.  3769.05   in  respect  of  Ishwerbhai  Prahladbhai  and Dayabhai Umeddass respectively for the period from September 1969 to  February 1970,  and Rs.  3082/- for the period from October  1970   to  March  1971  and  Rs.  1178.25  for  the transitional period  of April  and May  1971 in  respect  of Kanjibhai Shankarbhai  and Rs.  3962.40 and  Rs. 1237.80 for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

those identical  periods in  respect of  Nathalal  Maganlal. Directions under  s. 20  of Act for payment of those amounts together with  further sums  for the period during which the applications  were   pending  were   prayed   for   in   the applications. The  respondents in  the  applications  denied that the  four employees  are  working  under  any  District Panchayat  and   contended  that   they  were   work-charged employees in  the State service and that on the introduction of Panchayat  Raj in  the State  of Gujarat with effect from 1.4.1963 as  per  the  Gujarat  Panchayats  Act,  1961,  the maintenance of  tube-wells and  further extension  of  tube- wells   and   their   maintenance   and   the   work-charged establishment relating to the tube-wells were transferred to the  District   Panchayats  by   Government’s  Circular  No. MNS/41162/V dated 27.3.1963 and the employees were continued as work charged employees by the District Panchayat and were transferred to  and continued as such in the Panchayats. The respondents in the applications thus contended that the four employees concerned  were employees of the State of Gujarat, whose terms  and conditions  of employment  are  subject  to orders of the State Government and that they are paid out of the IOO  per cent  grant made  by the  State Government. The respondents in  the applications  further contended that the terms  and   conditions  of   service  of  the  work-charged employees of the State Government are governed by the P.W.D. Manual  and  that  the  four  employees  concerned  are  not entitled to the over-time wages claimed in the applications.      The Minimum  Wages  Authority  found  on  the  evidence adduced  by   the  parties   that  the  Tube-well  operators concerned  were   State  Government  servants  and  not  the servants  of   the  Panchayats,  that  Panchayats  exercised supervisory  control   over  them   and  that   it  was  not controverted by the applicant, before him 325 that the  Tube-well operators  were employed  by  the  State Government before  1.4.1963. Following  the decision in G.L. Shukla v.  State of  Gujarat,(l) the  found  that  Panchayat service is,  like any other branch of service, service under the State,  and  he  held  that  though  employment  in  any District  Panchayat   or  Taluka   Panchayat  is   scheduled employment  as  per  s.  2(g)  of  the  Act,  the  Tube-well operators concerned  being Government  servants in Panchayat service are  not entitled  to claim  minimum wages under the Act. In that view he dismissed the applications.      The Minimum Wages Inspector took the matter in revision before the  High  Court.  Diwan,  C.  J.,  who  heard  these Revisions followed  the decision  of the  Full Bench  of the Gujarat High  Court in  Criminal Appeal  No.  361  of  1972, disposed of  on 2.5.1974, in which the ratio of the decision in Shukla’s  case  was  approved  and  held  that  Panchayat service was  part of  the service of the State and the Tube- well  operators  concerned  are  State  Government  servants holding civil  posts. In that view the learned Chief Justice agreed with  the  Minimum  Wages  Authority  that  as  State Government servants  the Tube-well  operators concerned  are not entitled  to the benefit of the Act and he dismissed the Revisions.      The point  arising for  consideration  in  these  civil appeals is  simple. The  Minimum  Wages  Authority  and  the learned  Chief   Justice  have   found  that  the  Tube-well operators are Gujarat State Government servants. That is the contention of  the contesting  respondents I  and  2.,  viz. Taluka Development  officer Vijapur,  Taluka  Panchayat  and District Development officer, Mehsana District Panchayat, in these appeals. The contention of the State of Gujarat before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

us in Civil Appeal No. 359 of 1974 was that the employees in the District  Panchayats and  Taluka Panchayats  constituted under the  Gujarat  Panchayat  Act,  1961  and  Talatis  and Kotwals working  in Gram  and Nagar  Panchayats in the local cadre  of   Panchayats  constituted   under  that   Act  are Government servants  and that  the other  employees  in  the local cadre are Panchayat employees and not State Government employees. I-n  that appeal  we have repelled the contention that employees  of the  local cadre,  namely, Gram and Nagar Panchayat servants barring Talatis and Kotwals are Panchayat servants and not Government servants and held that they also are State Government servants like the District H 326 Panchayat and  Taluka Panchayat  employees and  Talatis  and Kotwals working in the Gram and Nagar Panchayats.      Section 3  of the  Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides for the appropriate  government, in  the manner provided in. the Act, fixing  minimum rates  of wages  payable  to  employees employed in an employment specified in Part I and Part II of the Schedule  and in  any other  employment added  to either Part by  notification under  s.27 of  the Aet subject to the proviso to  s. 3(1)  (a) and  has power  to review  at  such intervals as  it thinks  fit, such intervals not exceeding S years, the  minimum rates  of wages  so fixed and revise the minimum rates,  if necessary,  subject  to  the  proviso  to clause (b)  of sub-section  (I) of s. 3. Section 2(i) of the Act  defines  "employee"  as  meaning  "any  person  who  is employed for  hire or  reward to  do any  work,  skilled  or unskilled, manual  or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of  which minimum rates of wages have been fixed and includes an out-worker.. " "Employer" is defined in s. 2 (e) of the  Act as  "any person who employs, whether directly or through another  person, or  whether on behalf of himself or any other  person, one  or more  employees in  any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum wages have been fixed under the  Act and includes, except in sub-section (3) of s. 26". (i).........(ii)  .............. (iii) in any scheduled employment under  any local  authority in  respect of  which minimum rates  of wages  have been  fixed under the Act, the person appointed  by such  authority for the supervision and control  of  the  employees  or  where  no  employee  is  so appointed,  the   Chief  Executive   officer  of  the  local authority; and (iv) in any other case where there is carried on any  scheduled employment  in respect  of  which  minimum rates of  wages have  been fixed  under the  Act, any person responsible to  the owner for the supervision and control of the employees  or for  the payment of wages .. ". We are not concerned in  these appeals  with s.  26  (3)  of  the  Act. Section 2  (g) defines "scheduled employment" as meaning "an employment specified  in the  Schedule  or  any  process  or branch of work forming part of such employment". "Employment under any  local authority" is item 6 in the Schedule of the Act. Therefore,  there can  be no  doubt that  the Tube-well operators  concerned  in  these  appeals  are  in  scheduled employment under  the Panchayats.  The question  is whether, being  Government   servants,  employed   under  the   local authority, they  are not entitled to minimum wages and other benefits under  the Act. "Employer" under the Act being "any person who employs whether directly or through another 327 person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or  A more  employees in  any  scheduled  employment  in respect of  which minimum  wages have  been fixed  under the Act", the  Panchayat or Panchayats under which the Tube-well operators concerned  are employed  in  scheduled  employment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

would be  "employers" under  the Act  even though  they  are Government servants,  for under  s. 102  (2) of  the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 a Secretary of a Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat shall  subject to  the control  of the Sarpanch or Chairman  as   the  case  may  be,  perform  certain  duties mentioned in  clauses (a),  (b), (c)  and (d)  to that  sub- section and  under sub-section (3) of that section the other servants of  the panchayats shall perform such functions and duties and  exercise such  powers under  the Act  as may  be imposed or  conferred on  them by  the Panchayat, subject to rules, if  any, made  in this  behalf. We are, therefore, of the opinion  that the Tube-well operators concerned in these appeals,  even   thought  State   Government  servants,  are employed in  scheduled employment  under the local authority or authorities  and are  consequently  entitled  to  minimum wages and  other  benefits  under  the  Act,  it  not  being disputed that  minimum wages  have been  fixed by  the State Government  in  respect  of  Tube-well  operators  generally though that  benefit has  not been extended to the Tube-well operators  concerned  in  these  appeals.  The  appeals  are accordingly allowed  with costs. The applications before the Minimum Wages  Authority are  allowed as  prayed for and the directions shall be issued as prayed for. H.L.C.                                      Appeals allowed. 328