Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
President , Visakha Hotel And … vs The Management, Visakhapatnam Another on 2 April, 2025
APHC010291282007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 22797/2007
Between:
President , Visakha Hotel And Restaurant ...PETITIONER
Workers Union
AND
The Management Visakhapatnam Another ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M PITCHAIAH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. G V S GANESH
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION No.22797 of 2007
ORDER:
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution prays for the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to issue any Writ or Order or Direction more
particularly one the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS
declaring the award dated 20-01-2006 in I.D.No. 258/02 on
the file of the 2nd respondent Court as illegal, arbitrary
under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pass such
other further orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard arguments of Sri M.Pitchaiah, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, the learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited:
3
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
1. The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employees of the
Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi1
2. Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC
Employees Association v. Life Insurance
Corporation of India2
4. In these rulings their Lordships held that in settling the
disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of
the Tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in
accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either
party which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may
not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It has not
merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and
obligations of the parties. It can create new rights and obligations
between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial
peace. The Industrial Tribunal has got to arrive at some equitable
arrangement for averting strikes and lockouts which impede
production of goods and the industrial development of the
1
AIR 1950 SC 188
4
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
country. The Tribunal is not bound by the rigid rules of law. The
process it employs is rather an extended form of the process of
collective bargaining and is more akin to administrative than to
judicial function.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 cited the following
precedent:
3. Management of Ramakrishna Pharmaceuticals,
Hyderabad v. State Authority under Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 and Joint Commissioner of Labour, A.P.,
Hyderabad5
4. Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association v. Government
of Andhra Pradesh6
2
(2015) 9 SCC 62
3
(1999) 6 SCC 567
4
AIR 1967 SC 1175
5
2002 (3) ALD 247
6
2002 (4) ALD 545 (AP) (DB)
5
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
6. I.D.No.248 of 2002 before the learned Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam was on a reference under
Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh by its notification under G.O.Rt.
No.1582 dated 02.07.2002. The terms of the reference made
read as below:
“Whether the demand of the workmen of Park Hotel,
Visakhapatnam to pay minimum wages as per G.O.Ms.No.53,
dated 17.10.2000 of LET&F (Lab.II) Department by neutralizing
the D.A. points 411 points with basic wages and to continue to
pay the allowances being paid for the last 10 years as customary
allowances without including the said allowances as “all inclusive
minimum wages”, is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen
are entitled?”
7. The Labour Court issued notices to the employees’ union
as well as the management. Employees filed their claim
statement contending that for a long time they have been paid
HRA and CA and they have become customary allowances and
now that the management has been withdrawing them. That
grievance explains the reference made to the Labour Court.
Management filed its counter.
6
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
8. Before the Labour Court both parties were granted an
opportunity to adduce evidence and accordingly the President of
the workers union testified as WW1 and got marked Exs.W1 to
W8. On behalf of the management the in-charge manager
testified as MW1 and got marked Exs.M1 to M6.
9. After considering the material on record and the precedent
cited before it and the arguments advanced before it, the learned
Labour Court answered the reference in the negative and at
paragraph No.14 it stated that:
“In the light of the above legal precedents, it is quite clear that
wages under Minimum Wages Act, bifurcation of amounts
component-wise is not permissible and only the total emoluments
received by the worker has to be taken into consideration.
Evidently, workers are receiving wages more than fixed under
Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, I hold that the claim of the
petitioners is not sustainable and they are not entitled for any
further relief and thus, the reference is answered.”
10. In this writ petition the said award is assailed contending
that there is a difference between ‘rights dispute’ and ‘interest
dispute’. The Labour Court failed to recognize it and the dispute
raised before it was an ‘interest dispute’. That the Labour Court
7
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
misdirected itself in addressing the reference. That the demand
for payment of DA points is divorced from HRA and conveyance
allowance and the Labour Court should have decided the same
on merits, but it failed to do so. The award of the Labour Court
holding that the minimum wages is a total package inclusive of
HRA and conveyance allowances is erroneous as it failed to
notice such customary benefits cannot be considered as part of
the minimum wages.
11. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
submits that no material relevant for consideration was placed
before the Court to substantiate any of the contentions raised.
Questions raised require determination in the context of the
principle of industry-cum-region. That this writ petition is not
maintainable since it is not filed by the workers union of the Park
Hotel, Visakhapatnam but it was filed by Visakha Hotel and
Restaurant Workers Union. The learned counsel further argued
that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court in the
impugned award are in accordance with facts and law and
8
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
requires no interference and prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
12. The following aspects are to be noticed:
Earlier there was a revision of minimum wages in the hotel
industry under G.O.Ms.No.89 dated 15.05.1991. The next
revision took place at a time when the cost of living index was at
309 points. After a draft notification and after receiving objections
and after considering the report of State Minimum Wages
Advisory Board, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued
G.O.Ms.No.53, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories
(Lab-II) Department dated 17.10.2000. Andhra Pradesh Hotels
Association challenged the said G.O. and prayed for a Writ of
Mandamus which was after due contest dismissed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court. Against that an appeal was preferred
which was also dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this
Court in Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association’s case7. Now that
it seems to be the turn of the workmen.
7
Supra 6
9
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
13. Section 2(h) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 reads as
below:
“2(h) “wages” means all remuneration, capable of being
expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of
the contract of employment, express or implied, were
fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his
employment or of work done in such employment, and
includes house rent allowance, but does not include-
(i) the value of–
(a) any house-accommodation, supply of light, water,
medical attendance, or
(b) any other amenity or any service excluded by
general or special order of the appropriate Government;
(ii) any contribution paid by the employer to any Pension
Fund or Provident Fund or under any scheme of social
insurance;
(iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling
concession;
(iv) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special
expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment;
or
(v) any gratuity payable on discharge.”
10
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
14. The above definition makes it clear that wage includes
house rent allowance. It also makes it clear that the wage does
not include the value of any travelling allowance or the value of
any travelling concession. Learned Labour Court referred to
Ex.M6 which is statement of pay particulars of its employees as
on 31.01.2005 and recorded a finding that the wages mentioned
therein are not disputed by the employees/workers. It further
mentioned that as per Ex.M6 there is basic pay and further the
employees are paid DA, HRA and CA as per the Minimum Wages
Act notification. It also recorded that from the material on record
it is clear that employees have been receiving a greater amount
than the prescribed amount under the Minimum Wages Act. In
the present writ petition the above factual observations are not
disputed. However, the fervent submission of Sri M.Pitchaiah, the
learned counsel for writ petitioner is that the Labour Court ought
to have considered the issue before it as interest dispute and
ought to have answered the reference in the affirmative and this
contention is sought to be sustained on the rulings the learned
counsel has cited and referred by this Court earlier. This Court
finds no merit in this submission. Section 4 of the Minimum
11
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
Wages Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) requires recapitulation and
the said provision reads as below:
“4. Minimum rate of wages.–(1) Any minimum rate of
wages fixed or revised by the appropriate Government in
respect of scheduled employments under section 3 may
consist of–
(i) a basic rate of wages and a special allowance at a
rate to be adjusted, at such intervals and in such
manner as the appropriate Government may direct,
to accord as nearly as practicable with the variation
in the cost of living index number applicable to such
workers (hereinafter referred to as the “cost of living
allowance”); or
(ii) a basic rate of wages with or without the cost of
living allowance, and the cash value of the
concessions in respect of supplies of essential
commodities at concession rates, where so
authorised; or
(iii) an all-inclusive rate allowing for the basic rate, the
cost of living allowance and the cash value of the
concessions, if any.
(2) The cost of living allowance and the cash value of the
concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities
at concession rates shall be computed by the competent
authority at such intervals and in accordance with such
12
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007directions as may be specified or given by the appropriate
Government.”
15. Once the rates of minimum wages are prescribed under the
Act, whether as all inclusive under Section 4(1)(iii) or by
combining basic plus dearness allowance under Section 4(1)(i) of
the Act, are not amenable to split up. It is one pay package.
Neither the scheme nor any provision of the Act provides that the
rates of minimum wages are to split up on the basis of the cost of
each of the necessities taken into consideration for fixing the
same. Section 2(h) which defines the term “wage” specifically
provides that the value of the items given thereunder is not
required to be computed for finding out whether the employer
pays minimum wages as prescribed under the Act. Therefore,
while deciding the question of payment of wages, the competent
authority is not required to bifurcate each component of the costs
of each item taken into consideration for fixing minimum wages as
lump sum amount is determined for providing adequate
remuneration to the workman so that he can sustain and maintain
13
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
himself and his family and also preserve his efficiency as a
worker vide Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association’s case8.
16. The customary allowances are a matter of bargain between
parties. Whether such customary allowances should be directed
to be paid along with all inclusive minimum wages being paid
requires consideration of necessary material industry-cum-region
wise. No such material was placed before the learned Labour
Court by the writ petitioner. Without placing any relevant material,
it cannot be said that the writ petitioner is entitled to raise a
doctrinal issue before the Court saying that it is ‘interest dispute’
and the Labour Court failed to decide it appropriately. A Writ of
Mandamus can be granted by this Court against awards passed
by the Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court if there is
jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or when there was
misinterpretation of a statute or rendering an award ignoring a
binding precedent or when there was a perversity of finding or
when it failed to comply with statutory provisions or ignored
relevant material placed before it or when the award passed was
8
Supra 6
14
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
unreasonable or arbitrary or when it violated fundamental rights.
In the case at hand, the impugned award does not fall under any
of the above referred categories. Therefore, this Court finds no
merit in this writ petition.
17. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 02.04.2025
Ivd
15
Dr. VRKS, J
W.P.No.22797 of 2007
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
WRIT PETITION No.22797 of 2007
Date: 02.04.2025
Ivd
[ad_1]
Source link