ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948), dated 24.5.94. in M.W.No. 70 of 1993, granting minimum rates of wages to the applicants 1 to 43 respondents 2 to 44 herein, as fixed by the Government in G.O. (2D) No. 43 dated 7.10.91, the Warden-cum-Principal, Students’ Hostel, Government Engineering College, Salem has filed the above writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, the Government Engineering College, Salem is an institution run by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The curriculum imparted by the petitioner college to the students of that college is in accordance with the instructions of the University of Madras and for all other administrative purposes, the petitioner college follows the various circulars, notifications and instructions issued by the Director of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Madras-25. Hostel facilities are provided to the students studying in the college and a Mess also functions to cater to the needs of the students. The Mess is not a profit making organisation and it is run on dividing basis. The Mess is run by the elected representatives of the students. The Principal and staff members appointed by the Principal are only care takers of the hostel Mess. Even this team would be changing every year. While such is the position, the employees working in the Mess, numbering 43, filed an application before the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the first respondent herein, seeking direction under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act for payment of difference between the wages paid to the applicants and the wages they are entitled under notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act dated 7.10.91 and 12.6.90. It was the case of the petitioner Hostel before the first respondent that the Mess is excluded under the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act and that the petitioner establishment is exempted under the Minimum Wages Act. Though the first respondent has accepted the contention that the Mess is one exempted under the Catering Establishments Act, but, however, proceeded to hold that the Mess would fall under the definition ‘Hotel’ as found in the New Webster’s Dictionary. Consequently, the first respondent held that the employees are entitled for the difference in wages amounting to Rs. 80,384-20 and ordered payment of the said amount, Against the aforesaid order of the first respondent, the hostel has filed the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents 2 to 44.
4. The only point for consideration is whether respondents 2 to 24 are entitled to minimum wages as per the Government Order (2D) No. 43 dated 7-10-91 on par with the employees employed in hotels and restaurants as ordered by the first respondent authority.
5. There is no dispute that the respondents 2 to 44 herein are employees working in the Mess in the Students Hostel attached to the Government Engineering College, Salem. It is the grievance of the workmen that they were paid less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government as per G.O. (2D) No. 43 dated 7.10.91. On the other hand, the management argued that their Institution is excluded from the definition of Section 2(1), (4) and (5) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment, 1958 (Act XIII of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), since their institution is not doing business with profit motive and the workmen concerned do not come under the definition of “employees” or “workers”; accordingly, they are not entitled to get remedy under the Act. There is no dispute that catering establishments attached to educational institutions are exempted under the provisions of the Act. This is clear from Section 2 (1) of the Act However, it is the case of the workmen that they are entitled to minimum rates of wages as provided under the Minimum Wages Act (Act 11 of 1948). Let us consider whether Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the Students’ Hostel, wherein respondents 2 to 44 are working as employees. There is no dispute that Minimum Wages Act being labour welfare legislation has to be construed liberally and beneficially. It is also not disputed that the Government of Tamil Nadu in its G.O. (2D) No. 43 dated 7.10.91 have fixed minimum wages to the employees employed in Hotels and Restaurants. There is no dispute that all the persons working in any Scheduled employment are entitled to minimum rates of wages as prescribed. Employment in Hotels and Restaurants are added in the Schedule by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the persons working in hotels and restaurants are to be paid minimum wages as prescribed by the Government then and there. I have already stated that Section 2(1) of the Act excludes restaurant or canteen attached to, or run or managed by, any educational institution. In the light of the said definition, students’ hostel cannot be construed as a catering establishment as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Act. Though employment in hotels and restaurants is included in the Schedule and their employees are to be paid minimum wages as prescribed, admittedly, the Minimum Wages Act has not defined the term “hotel or restaurant”. In such a circumstance, the first respondent authority, in the absence of definition of such term (hotel or restaurant) in the Minimum Wages Act, by applying the meaning given in New Webster’s Dictionary, came to the conclusion that the students’ hostel is an establishment, which serves meals or refreshments, as such the students’ hostel is a hotel. After holding so, and by applying the G.O.
(2D) No. 43 dated 7.10.91, the Authority arrived at a conclusion that all the workers are entitled for minimum rates of wages as fixed by the Government in the said Government Order. It is true that Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act empowers the appropriate Government to fix minimum wages in the employment specified in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule. It is also not disputed that the Government of Tamil Nadu have added the term “hotels and restaurants” in Part 1 of the Schedule and fixed minimum wages to the employees in the employment of hotels and restaurants in G.O. (2D) No. 43 dated 7.10.91.
6. Mr. M,R. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the Students’ Hostel, vehemently contended that the hostel being run by the students cannot be construed as hotel or restaurant; hence the minimum wages as fixed in the said Government Order cannot be applied to that (hostel run by the students). I have already stated that the Minimum Wages Act has not defined the term “hotel or restaurant” and that the authority under the Act, in the absence of such term in the said Act, granted the relief on the basis of the meaning provided in the New Webster’s Dictionary.
7. The meaning for the word “Hotel”, as defined in the New Webster’s Dictionary, is as follows:-
“A building or establishment which provides living accommodations for transient visitors and sometimes long-term residents, and which often offers other facilities such as meeting rooms, restaurants, entertainment, and shops, available to its guests and to the general public.”
After referring to the said meaning and after holding that the hostel canteen is an establishment which serves meal or refreshments to. the inmates, the Authority came to the conclusion that the said establishment is a Hotel. In Schedule 1 of the Minimum Wages Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu has included the terms “employment in hotels and restaurants”. I have already referred to the fact that a restaurant or canteen attached to or run or managed by any educational institution does not come within the definition of catering establishment as per Section 2 (1) of the Act. In such a circumstance, we have to find out whether the first respondent authority was justified in granting the relief on the basis of the Dictionary meaning for the term “hotel”. Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has very much relied on a decision in State of M.P. v, G,S. Dall and Flour Mills, with regard to the interpretation of the statutory provisions. The following quotation referred to in para 15 of the decision is very much pressed into service:-
“Para 15…..In this connection we may refer to the observations of Lord
Watson in Salomon v. Salomon &Co,. 1987 AC 22,38:
“Intention of the legislature is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the legislature probably would
have meant, although there had been an omission to enact it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication.”
It is an application of this principle that a statutory notification may not be extended so as to meet a casus omissus. As appears in the judgment of the Privy Council in Crawford v. Spooner, 6 Moo PC 1,8.
“….we cannot aid the legislature’s defective phrasing of the Act, we cannot add, and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left there.”
He also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, , wherein Their Lordships have held that,
“18…..The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self-defeating. The Court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the Legislature to remove the ambiguity by construing the provision of the Statute as a whole keeping in view what was the mischief when the Statute was enacted and to remove which the Legislature enacted the Statute. This rule of construction is so universally accepted that it need not be supported by precedents….”
In the light of the said principles, it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was to include employment in hotels and restaurants under the purview of the Minimum Wages’ Act. If they want to include persons working in the Students’ Hostel, they could have very well included the same in the Schedule along with the term “Hotels, Restaurants” as Hotels, Hostels; Restaurants and Students’ Hostels”.
When the Legislature specifically omitted the term “Students’ Hostel” in the Schedule, thereby excluded it from the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, the Court cannot give an expanded meaning to the term “Hotel”, by referring to any Dictionary. As observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, even if there is defect in the Statute, we cannot aid the Legislature defective phrasing of the Act and we cannot add, mend and by construction making up the deficiencies which are left there. I am satisfied that the provision in the Schedule Part 1 is clear, unambiguous and in such a circumstance, it is the duty of the Court to give its natural meaning. In the plain language used by the Legislature, the question of ambiguity does not arise in extending our arms beyond the legislative intention. I am satisfied that the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, first respondent herein has committed an error in relying on the Dictionary meaning for the term “Hotel” and holding that students’ hostel is a hotel which attracts the Government Order referred to above in fixing minimum wages for the employees working therein.
8. Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the workmen, by relying on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology v. State of U.P, , contended that the
authority was justified in granting the relief as claimed by them. By reason of an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, Uttar Pradesh in favour of Cafeteria Workers of the Gobind Ballabh Pant University and subsequent confirmation thereof by the High Court prompted the University to move the Supreme Court by way of appeal. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology established under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958 happens to be a residential university having about 14 hostels to provide accommodation to the students with a cafeteria to provide food services to the residents of the hostels and others. There are about 170 employees working in these cafeterias and these are the employees who claim regulation of the services as regular employees of the University which, however, stands negated by the University authority. Thereafter, a dispute was raised before the Labour Court. The Labour Court accepted the claim of the employees and declared them to be the regular employees of the University from the date of the award and held entitled to receive the same salary and other benefits as the other regular employees of the University. The writ petition filed by the University came to be dismissed by the High Court, hence the civil appeal before the Supreme Court by the University. After considering the Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations of Gobind Ballabh Pant University and in the light of the various clauses and conditions therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the award of the Labour Court as well as the order of the High Court granting relief in favour of the workmen. Though Mr. S. Ayyathurai has very much pressed into service the dictum laid down in that decision, after perusal of the entire decision, it is clear that regulations were framed under the statute pertaining to hostel and cafeteria, namely, Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958. The Regulations also make it clear that University is the ultimate authority in the matter of running and maintenance of the cafeteria and it shall be compulsory for each student residing in a hostel to join the cafeteria of that hostel unless and otherwise permitted by the Chief Warden of the hostel on the request of the guardian of the student. After considering all the regulations, Their Lordships have held that there is an effective control in the University in the matter of running of the cafeteria. A residential University, having canteen facility and the inmates of the hostel not being permitted to have food from outside cannot possibly be said to be a mere welfare service to the students. In other words, it was held that the requirement of the Regulations framed under the Act and thus having statutory sanction and force. In our case, admittedly, there is no statutory Regulations or Rules similar to that as dealt with in the decision referred to above (Hostel and Cafeteria Regulations under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, 1958). Further, it is specifically stated by the Principal that these Hostel Messes are not profit making business oriented organisations, that they are run on dividing basis, every month and that it is like any other students Hostel Messes attached to the Colleges. He has also stated that the employees of Hostel are paid only from the establishment
charges collected from the students. The establishment charge per student is fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Hostel officials are appointed by the Principal every year on part time basis among the teaching staff of his college. They are paid Honorarium, fixed by the Hostel committee. The part of the Honorarium for the post of Deputy Warden, Residents Tutors are fixed by the Government and met from the Government funds. It is also stated by the Principal that they are paying higher salary and giving better benefits such as free food (all the times), two sets of uniform per year, gift of one month salary per year, 18 days casual leave per year, 10 days medical leave per year, toilet soaps, free lodging facilities, gratuity as per the norms fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, E.P.F. etc., as per the norms. In view of the above facts and in the absence of any statutory Regulations or Rules, I am of the view that the decision of the Apex Court in G.P. Pant University, is not applicable to. our case. I have already held that we have to interpret the law as enacted by the Legislature. I have also referred to the plain and simple language used in Part 1 Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act which covers employment in hotels and restaurants and in the absence of any ambiguity, we cannot include Students’ Hostel and provide the facilities, when it was not included by the Legislature. At the most, the workmen can make a request to the Government for inclusion of their employment in Schedule 1 to avail of the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act. So long as the Government passes appropriate order by giving liberal interpretation, we cannot give the extended meaning and include the Students’ Hostel under the category of “Hotels and Restaurants”. The first respondent authority committed an error in granting the relief as claimed by the workmen. The employees are entitled for wages on the basis of various circulars issued by the Director of Technical Education, as the Minimum Wages Act is not applicable to the Mess attached to the Hostel; hence the employees are not entitled to claim the difference in wages as stipulated in the Notifications issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The authority ought to have considered the fact that “Students Hostel” has not been included in the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act by the Government. Even otherwise, when the Mess in Students’ Hostel is not open to the public, it cannot be categorised as a Hotel; hence the application before the authority is not maintainable; accordingly the impugned order of the first respondent dated 24.5.94 is quashed and the writ petition is costs.