Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Managing Director, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, addressed the jurisdictional boundaries between the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act") and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Justice Jagmohan Bansal ruled that wage-related disputes should be pursued under the Minimum Wages Act through the appropriate authority, rather than under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act.

The case involved petitions by Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Ltd., challenging a 2019 Labour Court decision that directed the payment of differential minimum wages to workers hired through contractors. The corporation argued that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act to adjudicate disputed wage claims, as this responsibility lay exclusively with the designated authority under the Minimum Wages Act.

The workman argued that the principal employer was obligated to ensure payment of minimum wages and claimed the Labour Court’s order for differential wages was justified.

The Court focused on the jurisdictional question, finding that the Minimum Wages Act offers a complete statutory framework for resolving wage disputes. Justice Bansal highlighted that Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy for claims involving non-payment or underpayment of wages, with appointed authorities empowered to investigate, calculate, and enforce wage claims.

“In case of non-payment or short payment of wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, the workman has the remedy to approach the authorities notified under Section 20 of the Act. The Labour Court cannot determine the quantum of minimum wages payable under this Act”.

The Court underscored that Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act functions as an execution provision for undisputed claims, rather than a mechanism for determining complex wage disputes. Since the question of minimum wage entitlement was contested, the Court ruled that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in attempting to settle this matter.

The judgment noted that while the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, does place a responsibility on the principal employer to ensure compliance with the Minimum Wages Act, enforcement of wage disputes remains under the purview of the authorities specified in the Minimum Wages Act.

The Court set aside the Labour Court's order and clarified that the workmen could pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act. Additionally, the Court directed that the time spent during proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered in any limitation assessments for new proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024