Harjinder Singh @ Ghogi vs Baldev Singh And Another on 4 February, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
               CHANDIGARH

                                       C.W.P.No.15359 of 2006
                                       Date of Decision:- 04.02.2009

Harjinder Singh @ Ghogi                      ....Petitioner(s)


                   vs.

Baldev Singh and another                     ....Respondent(s)

                   ***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

                   ***

Present:-    Mr.R.L.Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.

                   ***

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in

the present case while impugning the order dated 31.5.1004 (Annexure P-7)

passed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Act’) is that the application itself was not maintainable as

Section 2-G of the Act defines “scheduled employment” to mean- an

employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or branch of work

forming part of such employment. He further contends that as per Section 2

(i) an “employee” means 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 to whom any articles or materials are given out

by another person to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered ornamented,

finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purpose of

the trade or business of that other person where the process is to be carried
C.W.P.No.15359 of 2006 -2-

out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises not being

premises under the control and management of that other person; and also

includes an employee declared to be an employee by the appropriate

Government, but does not include any member of the Armed Forces of the

Union.

In the light of these provisions, counsel for the petitioner states

that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the Schedule attached to the

Act does not include construction worker. This contention of the counsel

for the petitioner has not been refuted by the counsel for the respondent and

he rather admits that as a matter of fact the said application before the

Authority under the Act could not have been filed.

In view of the above, the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the

Authority under the Act (Annexure P-7) impugned herein, cannot be

sustained and is hereby quashed.

Counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the entire wages for

the period from 1.9.1999 to 25.1.2000 were not paid by the petitioner and

therefore, respondent No.1 be held entitled to the said claim. The said

contention cannot be adjudicated upon in the present writ petition as it

would be beyond the scope of this petition. However, if there is some right

or claim which respondent No.1 has against the petitioner, he may avail an

appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

February 04, 2009                     ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
poonam                                          JUDGE

Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No