CASE LAWS


• A Society will not be covered under the Payment of Wages Act. 
Tangipur Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samili Ltd. v. Siale of U.P., 2007 LLR 1247 (All HC). • Cinema Hall will be covered under the Payment of Wages Act. 
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2008 LLR 44 (All HC). 

• Mere designation of 'Manager' will not exclude him from Payment of Wages Act. 
Anii Kumar Yadav v. Stale of U.P., 2008 LLR 44 (All HC). 

• Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to a Travel Agency if covered under Bihar Shops & Establishments Act. 
Mis. Arya Travels rep. by G.P. Sahu v. State of Bihar, 2008 LLR 162 (Pat HC). 

• Payment of Wages Act not applicable to Society, hence order for payment is to be quashed. 
Tang'l,"r Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2007 LLR 1247 (All HC). 

• Disparity in wages between the workers employed by FCI in different States cannot be permitted. 
Food Corporation of India Workers v. Food Corporation of India, (1990) 2 LLN 664: (1990) 4 SLR 745: (1990) Supp sec 296: AIR 1990 se 2178: 1990 LLR 497 (SC). 

• If a junior clerk performs duties of a chief clerk, he will be entitled to wages of the post of the chief clerk. 
General Mi.lnager, Ajudhia Textile Mills v, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1990 LLR 327: 1990 I CLR 842 (Del HC). 

• Where the employer bona fidely disputes as to the nature of employment and rate of wages it would be a case of delayed payment and not deduction of wages. 
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through the Dy. General Manager (£Z) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi v. VIIth Additional Dist. Judge (Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act) Gorakhpur, 1992 LLR 217 (All HC). 

• The term 'wages' lmder Payment of Wages Act excludes bonus and as such incentive wages will also be excluded. 
Super House Ltd. v. The Prescribed Authority, 1992 LLR 235: 1992 (64) FLR 324 (All HC). • While applying principle of no work, no wages an employer can deduct wages on pro rata basis and can also take disciplinary action. 
C.T. Sugunarajv. Syndicate Bank, 1992 LLR 727: 1992 (I) LIC 1244: 1992-I! LLN 138 (Mad HC). 

• Ex-gratia payment made to the employees will not be 'wages' tmder section 2(rr) of the Act. 
Vagitri Plantations Ltd. v. Babu Mathew, 1993 LLR 778: 1993 (67) FLR 750: 1993-I! CLR 324 (Ker HC). 

• The Authority lmder the Minimum Wages Act has jurisdiction to award compensation which is in excess of the amount claimed by an employee. 
Ponnambalam v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1993 LLR 735 (Ker He). 

• The strike must be both legal and justified to entitle the workmen for wages of the strike period otherwise the striking workers will not be entitled to wages on the principle of 'no work no wages'. 
Syndicate Bank v. K. Urnes" Nayak, (1994) 5 SCC 572: AIR 1995 SC 319: (1994) 2 CLR 753: 1994 LLR 833: 1994-I! LLJ 836: 1994-11 LLN 1296 (SC). 

• Basic wages include salary and additional emoluments, whatsoever payable, either in cash or kind. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Rozak, 1994 LLR 82: 1994 (68) FLR 997: 1994-1 LLN 660 (Del HC). 

• A clerk given charge and responsibilities of the head clerk will be entitled to the latter's grade. 
shyamalendu Chatterjee v. Hooghly Dock and Port Engineers Ltd., 1995 LLR 438 (Cal HC). • The minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act will supersede the award and workers will be entitled to get the difference. 
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, jabalpur, 1995 LLR 544 (MP He). 

• Non-payment of wages to an employee in the absence of cogent evidence by the employer will not be justified. 
Balwant Dinkar Kadam v. Proprietor, MCGAY Industries, (1996) 1 CLR 444: 1995 LLR 624: 1995 (70) FLR 1064 (Born HC). 

• The State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations of the advisory board while fixing minimum wages. 
Rurmal Jhawaramal v. State of Bihar, 1995 LLR 717: 1995 LIC 1902 (Pat HC). 

• Claim by daily rated/casual employees for equal pay as those paid to regular ones will not be sustainable. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak, (1995) 1 SCC 235: 1995 LIC 330: (1995) 1 LL) 395: 1995 LLR 161 (SC). 

• The Principle of 'no work no wages' will apply only when the workers refuse to work on their own. 
Clifton Electronics v. Lt. Governor, 1995 LLR 896 (Del HC). 

• On employers request for holding an enquiry by the Labour Court after terminating the services of an employee, the employer will have to pay wages during the pendency of the enquiry. 
Pandurang Kashinath Wasant v. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Dhule, 1995 LLR 694: 1995 (71) FLR 27 (Born HC). 

• State Government, can revise minimum rates of wages retrospectively under the Minimum Wages Act. 
Association of Planters of Kerala v. State of Kerala, 1996 LLR 400 (Ker HC). 

• Deduction of wages for illegal strike period will be on the principle of 'no work no wages'. 
T.K Rajan v. Llbour Court Ernankulam, 1996 LLR 1126 (Ke, HC). • No wages will be payable if lock-out is legal. 
HAL. Employees' Union v. The Presiding Officer, (1996) 4 SCC 223: 1996 LLR 673 (SC) .. • An employer can deduct wages when there is excess payment to an employee. 
MoWal v. Superintendent, Government Press Jodhpur, 1996 LLR 759 (Raj HC). 

• If every aspect is taken into consideration, the fixation of minimum wages cannot be challenged. 
KC. Khandelwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 Mah L) 1000: (1996) 73 FLR 1564: (1996) 1 CLR 1034: 1996 LLR 710 (Born HC). 

• Fixation of minimum wages cannot be circumvented on technical grounds. 
KC. Khandelwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 Mah L) 1000: (1996) 73 FLR 1564: (1996) 1 CLR 1034: 1996 LLR 710 (Born HC). 

• Even ex-employees are covered by the Minimum Wages Act. 
Pali Devi v. Chairman, Managing Committee, Army School, jallandhar, (1996) 3 sec 296: AIR 1996 SC 1589: 1996 LLR 830 (SC). 

• Wages to the employees will not be payable by the taking over authority for the period prior to taking over. 
Bapu Subboo C,",wan v. National Texlile Corporation (SM) Ltd., (1996) 73 FLR 1598: (1996) 1 CLR 1028: 1996 LLR 840 (Born HC). 

• Workers required to work on national and festival holidays and leave holidays will be entitled twice of their daily wages or in the alternative average daily wage for that day and one substituted holiday within 90 days. 
Hind Samachar Ltd., Jaland,",r v, The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jatandhar, 1996 LLR 881 (P&H HC). 

• Teachers are not 'workman' hence their minimum wages cannot be fixed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act. 
Haryana Unrecognized School Association v. State of Haryana, 1996 LLR 560 (SC). • No wages to employees when they resort to illegal strike. 
H.M.T. Ltd. v. H.M.T. Head Office Employees' Association, 1997 LLR 758 (SC): AIR 1997 SC 585: (1996) 11 SCC 379. 

• The principles of natural justice are not applicable for failure to give notice for the normal deduction of wages for the period of absence under section 9(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd, v. Dy, Commissioner oJLabour, 1997 (91) FIR 355 (Mad HC). 

• Minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act for teaching staff cannot be fixed since the teachers are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. 
Hari Vidya Mandir, Sahupuri, Varanasi v, State oJ Uttar Pradesh, 1997 Lab IC 3122 (All HC). • Action of the employer deducting wages for the period for which the office bearers of the union had gone to a !tend the proceedings in court will not be justified. 
Modura Coats Ltd. v. S.L. Mehendte, Member, Industrial Court, (1998) 1 LLN 154: (1997) 3 Mah LJ 823: (1998) 78 FLR 946: 1998 LLR 287 (Born HC). 

• The employee not covered under Minimum Wages Act will not make claim for overtime under the said Act. 
Municipal Council, Halta v. Bhagat Singh, (1998) 2 sec 443: AIR 1998 se 1201: (1998) 1 LLJ 815: (1998) 2 LLN 409: 1998 LLR 298 (SC). 

• A probationer cannot be denied the minimum wages as fixed under the M.W. Act. 
Ajith Kumar v. Labour Court, (1999) 1 LLJ 780: (1998) 79 FLR 753: 1998 LLR 679 (Ker HC). • Justification and legality of a lock-out will be the decisive factor for payment of' wages. 
Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Ma,",sangh v. Mis, G.K.W. Ltd" (1998) 79 FLR 343: (1998) 1 CLR 1078: 1998 LLR 696 (Born HC). 

• Neither the Principal employer nor the contractor can be liable to pay minimum wages if it is not notified under the Minimum Wages Act. 
(1) Linge Gowda Detective and Security C,",mber (Pvt.) Ltd. (2) Mysore Kirtosknr Ltd. v. Authority Under Minimum Wages Act, 1998 LLR 77 (Kam HC). 

• Non-payment of minimum wages to the employees of a canteen will not be unfair labour practice. 
Oswal Petrochemicals v. Government oj Mohar.shtra, (1997) 77 FLR403: 1998 LLR 113 (Born HC). 

• 'Last drawn wages' means wages drawn at the time of termination. 
Hindus!an Paints Supply Company v. State of West Bengal, (1998) 79 FLR 504: (1998) 2 LL) 845: (1998) 2 LLN 777: 1998 LLR 713 (Cal HC). 

• Employees of courier service will be entitled to minimum wages fixed under Shops & Establishments Act. 
Airfrieght Ltd. v. State of Kamataka, 1998 LLR 972 (Kam HC). 

• Awarding of wages by the Tribunal for unjustified strike will be quashed. 
Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Ltd., Wire Division, Banga/ore v. Deccan Wire Employees' Association, Bangalore, 1998 LLR 1128 (Karn He). 

• Proceeding initiated under BIFR where wages are due, financlal inability of the employer is no defence for non-payment. 
Girni Kamgar Sangharsha Samiti & two Drs. v, Khatau Mackanji Spinning & Wvg. Company Ltd., (1998) 79 FLR 568: (1998) 3 LLN 166: (1998) 2 LLJ 264: 1998 LLR 616 (Born HC). 

• While considering revision of wages Tribunal must consider fin,ancial condition of the Company. 
B.P. Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Industrial Workers' Union, 1998 II CLR 611 (Born HC). • An authority under Payment of Wages Act can decide the claim of lmauthorised deductions from wages or delay in payment thereof since it has jurisdiction to decide all matters incidentally to such claims. 
General Manager, U.P.S.B. Corporation Ltd. v. Christopher Fonseca, (1998) 2 LL) 197: (1998) 79 FLR 860: (1998) 1 LLN 701: 1998 II LL) 738 (Born HC). 

• Deduction of wages for stoppage of departmental buses by the residents of nearby village will not be justified. 
Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union, (represented by its Secretary, L. Raviraj) Kalpakkam v. Nuclear Power Corporation, (represented by Station Director) Madras Atomic Power Station, 1999 LLR 251 (Mad HC). 

• No payment of wages to a workman during pendency of approval for his dismissal will not be necessary when he is not a protected workman. 
V.K. Verma v. Hindustan Machine Tools, Ltd., Pinjore, 1999 LLR 370 (P&H HC): 1999-1 LLN 570. 

• Principle of 'no work no pay' will apply if an employee overstays his leave. 
Madan Prasad Singh v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, 1999 LLR 696: 1999¬II LLN 564 (Pat HC). 

• An establishment will be excluded from the applicability of Minimum Wages Act when the wages are more than the prescribed rates. 
Airfreight Ltd. v. State of Kamataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567: AIR 1999 SC 2459: (1999) 4 LLN: 1999 LLR 1008 (SC): 1999 (83) FLR 126. 

• An employer paying higher than minimum rates of wages is not required to pay variable dearness allowance separately. 
Airfreight Ltd. v. State of Kamataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567: AIR 1999 SC 2459: (1999) 4 LLN 1: 1999 LLR 1008 (SC): 1999 (83) FLR 126. 

• When the total remuneration is more than the minimum wages plus DA it will not amount to unfair labour practice. 
Hariial Jeehand Doshi Ghatkopar Hindu Sabha Hospital v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, (1999) 83 FLR 789: (2000) 2 Mah LJ 123: 1999 LLR 1159 (Born HC): 1999-11 CLR 799. 

• Equal wages will be payable even to the casual workers engaged through the contractor when they are doing the same work. 
Food Corporation of India v. Shyamal K. Chatterjee, (2000) 7 SCC 449: AIR 2000 SC 3554: 
(2000) 2 LLj 1407: 2000 LLR 1293 (Se).

• No wages will be payable to a worker who fails to report for duty as offered by the employer. 
Velan Saw Mills (represented by N. Mnngalam Proprietrix) v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli and V. Chinnan, 2001 LLR 115 (Mad He). 

• Prosecution of the Secretary of a Society nnder Minimum Wages Act will be quashed if he was not involved and also violations were vague. 
Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. State of Bihar, 2001 LLR 562 (Pat He). • Cutting of full day's wages will be justified when the bank employees have partially struck the work. 
Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. V. Rilveendran, Secretary, Reserve Bank Employees' Associntion, 2001 LLR 23 (Ker He). 

• Contract workers will get wages at par with direct workers of the employer. 
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Employees Union, (2001) 2 Mah Lj 837: 2001 LLR 446 (Born He). 

• Prosecution of an employer for non-payment of wages will be quashed when no opportunity is afforded to him. 
Sailesh T. Bhansell v. Inspector of Plantations VaLparai, Coimbatore District, 2001 LLR 498 (Mad He). 

• Daily rated worker working at different sites performing different nature of work cannot claim equal wages for equal work. 
GujaTat Mineral Development Corporation Employees' Union v. G.M.D. Corporation, 2001 LLR 346 (Guj He). 

• Retention allowance paid to seasonal employ~es will from part of 'wages' nnder the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and such employees will be entitled to bonus. 
Sangammer Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhane Ltd v. Roshtriya Sakhar Kamgar Union, (2000) 86 FLR 882: (2001) 2 LLj 707: 2001 LLR (Sum) 1068 (Born HC). 

• Workers not denying to have resorted to strike will not be entitled to wages for the strike period. 
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen Employed in the Refinery Division of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2001) 88 FLR I: (2001) 4 LLN 76: 2001 LLR 26 (Born He). 

• No wages will be payable to the strikers when the strike is illegal. 
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen Employed in the Refinery Division of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2001) 88 FLR 1: (2001) 4 LLN 76: 2001LLR 26 (Born HC). 

• Non-payment of salary or allowance by the employer on the ground that the misconduct was under consideration when an employee was placed under suspension will not be sustainable. 
Chandrakantha v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2001 LLR (Sum) 414 (Kam He). 

• Minimum wages must be paid to daily w~gers engaged for maintaining the agricultural fields. 
Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union, (2001) 7 sec 346: AIR 2001 SC 3228: 2001 SCC (L&S) 1180: 2001 LLR 904 (SC). 

• When two posts are different, demand for equal pay fixation or seniority will not be tenable. 
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Workmen, Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 2420: iool LLR 1007 (SC). 

• In case an employee not taken on duty on reinstatement, he will get wages for the period till he is taken on duty. 
Chandrakantha v. State Road Transport Corporation, 2001 LLR (Sum) 411 (Karn He). 

• Minimum wages must be paid to the employees of a hospital even when run by a Trust. 
Krishna Devi - Devi Prasad Kejariwal Matri Sadan v. State of Bihar, 2001 LLR 658 (Pat HC). • Minimum wages cannot be fixed for teachers since they are not 'workmen' under J.D. Act. 
1. Chaeha Nehru Vidyapith, Ranchi v. Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum• Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, 2001 LLR 479 (Jhark He). 
2. Green School, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2001 LLR 21 (All HC). 

• Illegality in commencement of lock out may be cured by notice of expiry of 14 days and as such the lock out will be legal and the management will be liable to pay wages only for the period when the lock out was not legal. 
Otis Elevatore Company (India) Ltd. v. G.S. Baj, (2001) 1 Mah LJ 853: (2001) 89 FLR 714: (2001) 2 LLN 209: 2001 LLR (Sum) 1070 (Born HC). 

• Declaring lock out after the workers adopted go slow tactics and strike will be justified and the workman not resuming duties after lefting the lock-out will not be entitled to wages. 
Mysore Wine Products and Allied Company Ltd" Banga/ore v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, 2001 LLR (Sum) 847 (Kam HC). 

• High Court will not interfere with notification fixing minimum wages even when there are minor mistakes with the calculations. 
Chotanagpur Small Scale Industries Association v. State of Bihar, 2001 LLR (Sum) 959 ()har HC). 

• A notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act revising wages @ 20% increase will not be illegal even when it has been issued after the expiry of five years as provided under the Minimum Wages Act. In this case the revision has been made after nine years and as such slight increase in neutralisation above 100% cannot be said to be arbitrary on the part of appropriate Authority. 
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association rep. by Secretary v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department, 2001 LLR (Sum) 1070 (AP HC). 

• Unilateral reduction of wages of an employee will be contrary of section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
S.N. Kedare v. Ceat Tyres of India Ltd., (2002) 2 Mah LJ 359: (2001) 91 FLR 922: (2001) 3 CLR 291: 2002 LLR 143 (Born HC). 

• Salary and allowances being paid to regular employees be paid to daily rated employees also. 
Director-General a/Works, C.P.W.D. v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2002 LLR 124 (Del HC). 

• Minimum wages as fixed for Footwear industry will not apply to leather goods. 
Ezaz Tanning Company v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 LLR 126 (Mad HC). 

• While fixing minimum wages, lhe decision of Advisory Board will not be binding upon the Gover':'ll'ent. 
North Bihar Chamber of Commerce & Industries, Muzaffarpur v. State of Bihar, 2002 LLR 166 (Pat HC). 

• Principle of 'equal work, equal wages' will be subject to volume and duration of lhe work. 
Food Corporation afIndia Workers Union v. Food Corporation a/India, (2002) 9 sec 100: 2002 sec (L&S) 1057: 2002 LLR 769: 2002 LIC 1504: 2002 (101) FjR 10: 2002-11 LLj 267: 2002¬II LLN 365: AIR 2002 se 1659 (SC). 

• Last drawn and not minimum wages will be payable to a workman during pendency of proceedings in lhe higher court. 
Indian Printing Press Works v. Union Territory of Delhi, 2002 eLR 164: (2002) 99 DLT 217: (2002) 111 LLj 560: 2002 LLR 791 (Del HC). 

• Awarding wages to casuallahourers at par wilh regular employees will be set aside when lhe reference pertained to lheir regularisation. 
Hindusfan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 884 (AP HC). 

• .Determination of 'equal pay for equal work' has inherent difficulties for comparison. 
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2002 LLR 884 (AP HC). 

• No separate DA will be payable when the total wages are more lhan the minimum, 
Ramakrishna Pharmaceuticals & Ramakrishna Homeo Pharmaceuticals (Pvt,) Ltd. v, State Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, 2002 LLR 988 (AP HC). 

• Workers receiving higher wages than lhe minimum by a settlement, will be debarred to demand special allowance as notified by Government. 
Ramakrishna Pharmaceuticals & Ramakrishna Homea Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, 2002 LLR 988 (AP HC). 

• If an employer can not pay the minimum wages, he has no right to run the industry. 
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 1122 (AP HC). . 

• High Court will not interfere in fixation or revision of minimum wages. 
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Associntion v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 1122 (AP He). 

• Paying capacity cannot be lhe grounds for non-payment of minimum wages. 
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department, Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 1122 (AP HC). 

• The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied when casual! daily wage workers are regularised. 
State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, (2003) 1 sec 250: AIR 2003 se 33: 2003 LLR 44 (SC). 


A notification fixing mlillmum wages for the pump drivers will not be 'plicable upon part-time pump operators. 
Tirukkazhukundram Panchnyat Union v. Authority Appointed under the Minimum Wages Act (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), 2003 LLR 492: 2003 LLN 708 (Mad He). 
The Au!hority under !he Minimum Wages Act is vested wi!h condoning !he 'lay for making claim for wages by the workers. 
Thanjavur Central Co-operative Bank Employees Co~operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 2003 LLR 518: 2003-11 LLN 1 (Mad He). 
Direction to grant pay scale to an employee appointed on temporary basis on nsolidated pay cannot be given when there is no material placed before the )urt for comparison in order to apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. lvfJmoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188: (2003) 3 SLR 356: (2003) 2 LLj 968: 2003 LLR 611: 2003-11 LLN 1096: 2003 (97) FLR 800 (Se). 
A. right to carryon business is subject to compliance of constitutional obligations d as such fmancial stringencies may not be a ground for non-payment of wages the employees. 
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1: (2003) 3 LLj 31: (2003) 116 CC 133: (2003) 4 SCC 541: 2003 LLR 628: 2003 (98) FLR 329 (SC). 
'ill employee, in addition to discharging her duties as a demonstrator also doing , work of clerical nature, will be entitled to minimum wages as applicable to a rk. 
Singer India Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2003) IV LLj (Supp) 895 (NOC): 2003 LLR 658: 2003 (97) FLR 690 (All HC). 
Nhile applying !he principle of 'no work, no wages', the award of full back¬ges will be modified to half of back-wages. 
Nagar Panchayat, Sadabad, Mathura v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra, (2003) N LLJ (Supp) 899 (NOC): 2003 LLR 739: 2003 (97) FLR 1020 (All He). 
'qual pay for equal work is a concept which requires, for its applicability, nplete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical ( scales and other group who have already earned such pay scales. 
State ofHaryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123: AIR 2003 SC 2658: (2003) 4 SLR 746: 2003 LLR 823: 2003-1II LLj 487 (SC). 
.abourers, engaged for construction of a hall of the school, will be entItled to umum wages as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and !he concept of mdan is extraneous to the labour and entitlement of wages. 
Robert Tappa v. State ofjharkhand, (2003) III LLj 810: 2003 LLR 948: 2003 (98) FLR 716 ()har HC). 
'he Authority under the Minimum Wages Act has rightly held that the nagement will be liable to pay minimum wages to such labourer engaged for "truction of school hall alongwilh penalty five times which, however, has been uced to three times. 
Robert Tappa v. State ofjharkhand, (2003) III LLj 810: 2003 LLR 948: 2003 (98) FLR 716 ()har He). 
he parity of wages as granted by Industrial Tribunal to Mates working with :0 to those working wi!h CPWD performing similar duties will not be "fered by !he High Court. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Workman (Mates), 2003 LLR 1023 (Del HC). 


• Even though weavers after lifting cotton from the petitioner's centre weave it in their home and then return the finished product to the centre but the Minimum Wages Act applies even to such employees. Sub-section (1) of section 2 defines an employee which includes such out wbrkers. 
Swaraj Ashram, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 1 LLj 80, 2003 LLR 1135, 2003 (99) FLR 395 (All HC). 

• When a stay order was obtained by the employee that the employee could not join his duties, the latter cannot be deprived of his salary for such forced unemployment since non-employment was not because of his fault hence the principle of 'no work no wages' will not be applicable. 
Seeta Charan Banwari v. Madhya Pradesh Rnjya Bhumi Vikas Nigam, (2004) IV LLJ (Supp) 252, 2004 LLR 43 (MP HC). 

• Pieee'-rated employees can not be deprived of minimum wages as fixed and/or revised under the Minimum Wages Act. 
Delhi Admn. through Directorate of Social Welfare v. Presiding Officer, (2004) 1 LLJ 910: 2004 LLR 83 (Del HC). 

• When disability of an employee is incurred during his employment, his minimum wages can not be reduced since it will be prejudicial to the dignity of labour. 
Delhi Admn. through Directorate of Social Welfare v. Presiding Officer, (2004) 1 LLj 910: 2004 LLR 83 (Del HC). 
Note: 'Full wages to workman pending proceedings in the higher courts', please see the cases under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 

• Rates of minimum wages for the employees will not apply to the milk testor working for two hours a day. 
Paduppu Ksheerolapadaka 5.5. Ltd. v. Varghese, 2004 LLR 662 (Ker HC). 

• An employer will not lose its right to deduct the wages for 'unauthorised absence of the employee if not deducted within one month from the wages. 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Staff and Workers Federation, 2004 LLR 739 (Kam HC). 

• Condoning of delay for claiming arrears of wages due to sufficient cause by the Authority will not be illegal. 
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Mayurbhanj v. Addl. District Magistrate, Mnyurbhanj, 2005 LLR 121 (Ori HC). 

• Under the Minimum Wages Act, it is the liability of principal employer to pay difference of wages to the employees of the contractor. 
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Mayurbhanj v. Addl. District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, 2005 LLR 121 (Ori HC). 

• When the employer had assumed that the workman deliberately did not report for duty, the reduction of wages is not permissible without enquiry. 
Godrej and Boyce Mnnufacturing Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Kherulla Hasanali Pathan, (2005) 1 Mah LJ 317: 2005 LLR 286 (Born HC). 

• The monthly pay of an employee is his property and he cannot be deprived of it except by due process of law. 
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Campany (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Kherulla Hasanali Pathan, (2005) 1 Mah LJ 317, 2005 LLR 286 (Born HC). 

• Equal wages of regular employees cannot be claimed by the contractual employees engaged for fixed tenure. 
Yuvneet Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2005 LLR 366 (Del He). 

• When the contractual employees failed to prove that they were performing the duties as identical with the regular employees, they cannot claim equal wages. 
Yuvneet Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2005 LLR 366 (Del He). 

• Inaction on the part of the Government in not revising minimum wages for 13 years will not be justified hence revision be made within 6 months. 
President Cinema Workers Union Affiliated to Bharatiy Mazdoor Sangh v. The Secretary Social Welfare and Llbour Department, 2005 LLR 648 (Karn He), 

• Allowing upward revision of wages and allowances by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of industry-cum-region formula will not be justified. 
Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Concept Pharmaceuticals Kamgar Sanghatana, 2005 LLR 675 (Born HC). 

• Minimum wages to the safai karamcharis cannot be denied on the ground that they work on part-time basis. 
Sonu v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2005 LLR 778 (Del He). 

• The directors of a Company cannot be held personally liable for payment of wages to the employees. 
P.e. Agarwala v. Payment of Wages Inspector, MP, (2005) 8 SCC 104: 2005 SCC (L&S) 1089: (2005) 6 SLR 401: (2005) 107 FLR 826: 2005 LLR 1073 (SC). 

• The workers, designated as semi-skilled, will be entitled to the wages in accordance with Wage Board. 
Director, Mis. Experimental Sugar Factory, Kanpur v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Llbour Court, Kanpur, 2006 LLR 343 (All HC). 

• -Since the main function of a Hospital is to give medical treatment, as such not covered by the Factories Act or Payment of Wages Act. 
Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2006 LLR 628 (Del He). 

• Private security guards through contractor, will not be entitled to minimum wages in the absence of 'scheduled employment'. 
Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber Pvt. Ltd. v. Mysore KirloskJIr Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 180: (2006) 3 LLN 777 AIR 2006 SC 1967: (2006) 2 KLT 768: 2006 LLR 729 (SC). 

• A teacher, not being a workman, will neither be covered under Payment of Wages Act nor Minimum Wages Act. 
Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishild Allahabad v. Prescribed Authority, under Payment of Wages Act, Jhansi, 2006 LLR 869 (SN) (All He). 

• "No work, no wages" will be applicable when workers have resorted to illegal strike. 
Lt. Governor, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Delhi Flood Control Mazdoor Union, 2006 LLR 1113 (Del He). 

• Deduction of full day wages of employees abstaining from work for few hours for staging dharna is justified. 
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Diploma Engineers' Association v, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, 2006 LLR 1132 (MP He). 

• A Society is liable to pay minimum wages to its employees. 
Delhi Council for Child Welfare v. Sheela Devi, 2006 LLR 1181 (Del He). 

• 'No work, no pay' will apply when employees absented from work and resorted to strike. 
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Diploma Engineers' Association v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, 2007 LLR 89 (MP He). 

• Pendency of industrial dispute will not debar employees to claim wages under the Minimum Wages Act. 
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 2007 LLR 79 (MP He). 

• A workman will be entitled to his last drawn wages from his filing of affidavit during pendency of proceedings in the higher court. 
Kodungalloor Town Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Surendra Babu, 2007 LLR 105 (Ker He). • Earned wages will become due only after working for prescribed period. 
Dr. Mala Bhandari v. Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954, 2007 LLR 195 (Del He). 

• Bida Institute of Technology will be liable to pay the wages as per Minimum Wages Act. 
Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Bihar, 2007 LLR (SN) 330 Ghar He). 

• In the absence of relationship of master and servant, the weighmen will not be entitled to minimum wages. 
Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Weighmen's Association, Tiptur, 2007 LLR (SN) 333 (Kam He). 

• Deduction of wages of the workers for slowing down of work, in the absence of opportunity, will not be justified. 
Workmen of Bata India Ltd., Represented by its General Secretary v. Commissioner of Labour in Kamataka, 2007 LLR 443 (SN) (Kam He). 

• Claim pertaining to stoppage of increment will not be tenable under Payment of Wages Act. 
Sant N(J"ain v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot, 2007 LLR 621 (P&H HC). 

• Collection and distribution of milk withoul rearing of milch cows will not be within 'Dairy Farming' under Minimum Wages Act. 
Secretary Padippu KS. Sangam Ltd. v. C. Varghese, 2007 LLR 783 (SN) (Se). 

• When the wages are more than the minimum rates, no separate VDA will be payable. 
Indure (P) Ltd. v. Slate of U.P., 2007 LLR 1038 (All He). 

• Petrol Plunp employees will be entitled' to minlmum wages. 
Ajay Bansal v. State, 2007 LLR 1040 (Del He). 

• 'No work, no pay' will be applicable when the workman did not resume duty despite offers. . 
Mis. Sikand and Company v. State of H.P., 2008 LLR 58 (HP He). 

• Allowing equal benefits to the canteen workers as available to VIP Guest House employees liable to be set aside. 
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical Engg. Consultants (I) (P) Ltd., 2008 LLR 1 (Se). • Bonus, Provident Fund and unpaid increments would not form part of minimum wages. 
MICA Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 468 Ghar He). • Onus is on employee 10 prove his claim for being paid lesser than fixed minimum wages. 
MICA Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 468 Ghar HC). 

• Prosecution under Minimum Wages Act is to be quashed when complaint does not spill out the accused and offence. 
shriram Centre (M/s,) v. State, 2008 LLR 125 (Del He), 

• Similar wages to workers of contractor not payable when they were doing only intermittent work of regular employees. 
Himmat Singh v, I.e.I, India Ltd., 2008 LLR 357 (SC), 

• Ten times penalty for short payment than minlmum wages is to be modified to the equivalent to the amount. 
Kera/a Automobiles Ltd, (Mis') v. Naveetha P" 2008 LLR 677 (Del He). 

Reimbursement for treatment to a non-recognised hospital, is to be allowed under the Payment of Wages Act. 
Superintending Engineer, Electricity Transmission Circle, Kanpur v. Prescribed Authority, (Payment of Wages Act) City Magistrate, Kilnpur, 2008 LLR 729 (All He). 

A claim for leave pay and bonus is beyond the scope of Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. 
MICA Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd, v. State of fharkhand, 2008 LLR 891 (SN) ()har He). 

• In the absence of an order for regularsing the absence of employee, the deduction from wages was proper. 
Kili/ash Chandra Tiwari v. Second Additional District Judge, 2008 LLR 893 (SN) (All He), 

• An employee getting wages above prescribed ceiling cannot invoke the forum under Payment of Wages Act. 
Mis Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, Ghaziabad v. Prem Chandra Tha, 2008 LLR 911 (All HC). 

• House rent allowance forms a part of wages, hence the claim under Payment of Wages Act will be tenable. 
MIs Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, Ghaziabad v. Prem Chandra fha, 2008 LLR 911 (All HC). 

• Writ petition against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act by a social organization will be entertained. 
MIs Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, Ghnziabad v. Prem Chandra fha, 2008 LLR 911 (All He). 

• Neither back-wages nor bonus would be part of wages under the Payment of Wages Act. 
Dhiraj/a/ G. Vadgama v. Union of Indu., 2008 LLR 1111 (SN) (Guj He). 

• Deduction from salary cannot exceed 75% if worker is covered by Payment of Wages Act. 
S. Hussain Bee v. AP. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, 2008 LLR 1258 (AP He). 

• Liability of employee for payment of compensation in an accident arises from the date when accident took place. 
sita Ram v. satvinder Singh, 2009 LLR 222 (SN) (HP He). 

• Five limes compensation is appropriate when wages are less than the prescribed minimum rates. 
AS. Lally, Major (Reid) v. Assistant !JIbour Commissioner, 2009 LLR 100 (P&H He). 

1 comments:

kesavapanda said...

When two or three scheduled employment G.Os fixed/revised by the Govt. of A.P. are applicable to one establishment how the employer selects most suitable one to his establishment? Can he select one out of them on the coverage of more categories of workers of his estt. or selects one which is more beneficial to workers by wage structure though the coverage of workers are very less than that of the other G.O.covering more categorised workers? Any judgments or government orders to that effect?.. kesavapanda@gmail.com

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More