Judgment:
S.P. Kundukar, J.
1. This group of 9 writ petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the contempt petition filed by one of the respondents, can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of a common judgment passed by the Minimum Wages Court at Bombay, on the applications filed by the respondents in all these petitions. The petitioners challenge legality and correctness of the impugned order dated August 14, 1987.
2. The Respondents in all these writ petitions filed applications under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, praying that the petitioners be directed to pay them difference in the minimum wages and the wages actually paid to them. According to the respondents, the provisions of Minimum Wages Act apply to them and they are entitled to wages as prescribed underthe Minimum Wages Act. There does not seem to be any dispute that the petitioners in the writ petitions are in Naval establishment conducting canteen for the benefit of the patients admitted in the hospital known as 'I.N.H.S. Ashwini'. According to the petitioners, the said canteen is meant to cater needs of the patients. It is not open to the general public. It is also not a profit making concern and is maintained out of the funds raised locally by Navy.
3. According to the respondents they are working in the canteen and doing various jobs like Cook, Attendant etc. and therefore, wages should be fixed as scheduled employees.
4. The petitioners contended the petitions on various grounds. According to the petitioners, the respondents were only part-time workers and their working hours are for 5 hours per day. Petitioners farther contended that they are making no profits. It is meant for patients in the hospital and respondents therefore, are not covered by the Minimum Wages Act. Respondents' claim is misconceived and be rejected.
5. The learned trial Judge framed 5 issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned trial Judge after perusing the material produced before him held that the respondents are working in the canteen not as part-time workers, but as full-time workers. The claim of the respondents is not barred by limitation. The respondents are entitled to wages as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. Consistent with these findings, the learned trial Judge fixed the minimum Wages of these various workers in terms of the operative part of the order.
6. Mr. Govilkar, learned Counsel appearing in support of these petitions urged that the learned Judge made an error while holding that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act apply to the respondent. He urged that the Respondents have been working between 10-30 a.m. and 1-30 p.m. and 3-30 p.m. to 5-30 p.m. and the total working hours are 5 hours. In view of these working hours and having regard to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950, the respondents are not entitled to get benefit of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. Contention appears to be that under Rule 24 normal working hours which are required to be put in by the employee are 9 hours, whereas the workers herein are required to work only for 5 hours and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of Minimum Wages Act. Mr. Govilkar also urged that all these employees are part time workers and they are not full-time workers. It was also urged by Mr. Govilkar that the canteen is run on the basis of 'No profit No loss' and the petitioners should not be saddled with minimum wages that are prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act.
7. We see no substance in any of these contentions. As far as contention relating to Rule 24 is concerned, viz., putting in 9 hours of work, it may be stated that the learned Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded a finding that the Respondents must be working for 9 hours. This being a finding of fact, it would not be possible to interfere with the said finding in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. The next contention as regards the respondents being part-time workers, we also see no substance in this contention. The workers are required to work from 10-30 a.m. to 1-30 p.m. and after recess from 3-30 p.m. to 5-30 p.m. In addition to these working hours, the witness Shri Sharma examined on behalf of the petitioners has admitted that the workers are required to wait after the aforesaid working hours to complete documentation and other work. If this is the factual position, then it must follow that the respondents are not part-time workers but they are full-time workers and doing work for 9 hours,
9. The learned trial Judge has carefully considered all the contentions raised before him and in our opinion, the findings recorded by him do not suffer from any illegality. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference. It is contended by Mr. Govilkar that Respondents in Writ Petitions No. 742/88, 743/88, 744/88 and 747/88 are presently continued in service of the petitioners. Rest of the Respondents have left the services and they are no more employees in the canteen. There is noopposition to this contention. We therefore, accept this submission of the petitioners. Counsel for the parties after calculating the wages payable to the workers as per the impugned award have submitted two statements. Statements taken on record and marked X (colly). The difference payable to them is reflected in the said statements. The petitioners, pursuant to the directions of this Court, have been depositing in this Court every month, difference in wages payable to these respondents. We accordingly permit the respondents to withdraw the difference in wages in terms of the statements produced before us. The petitioners are also permitted to withdraw the amounts as per the above statements. Respondents to withdraw the wages as per statements filed on record within 6 months. In default, balance of amount if any, be paid over to the petitioners. It is needless to add that the respondents who are in service of the petitioners will continue to get the wages for future as fixed by the trial Court as per revised rates. If the minimum wages are required to be revised underthe Minimum Wages Act, the respondents may approach the Competent Authority for appropriate directions.
10. There appears to be some dispute as regards food served to the Respondents. Mr. Govilkar after taking instructions states that the Respondents who are in service will be paid full salary without deducting any amount towards food. Two statements which are marked X (colly.) to form part of this judgment.
11. The writ petitions are devoid of any merits and the same are dismissed. Rule discharged in each of the petition with no order as to costs.
12. In view of the above order, we do not think it necessary to pass any separate order on the Contempt Petition. Contempt petition is dismissed.
Certified copy expedited.