Employment of workmen without paying them the minimum wages constitutes a criminal offence, the Delhi High Court ruled allowing the petition filed by a gardener of the Central Secretariat Club. In what could be a far-reaching order, the High Court also observed that an industry which does not pay the minimum wages to its workers has “no right to continue”.
“Non-payment of minimum wages, to a workman is unconscionable and unpardonable in law,” the court said, adding “… (the) discussion leaves no manner of doubt that minimum wages are the basic entitlement of the workman, and an industry which employs workmen without paying them minimum wages has no right to continue,” the High Court order said.
Upholding the gardener’s right, Justice C Hari Shankar directed the club to disburse him the difference in payment between the wages paid and the minimum wages payable to him under the Act from September 1, 1989 to September, 1992, in addition to the amount awarded by the labour court.
The court also directed the club to pay Rs 50,000 cost to the man for not complying with the labour court’s order passed 14 years ago directing it to pay Rs 15,240 to Singh for the period between October, 1992 and September, 1995.
It said the total amount to be paid to the man shall be given with an interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of award, July 16, 2004 till the date of paying him and directed that the payment should be made within four weeks of the passing of this order.
As per the order, Singh had worked with the club from September 13, 1989 till September 30, 1995.
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, appearing for Singh, submitted that the workman was entitled to be paid difference in wages for entire period from September 13, 1989 to September 30, 1995 and the labour court materially erred in limiting the award of differential wages only to the period October 1992 to September 1995.
The club’s advocate said they were willing to pay Rs 15,240 awarded by the tribunal, which was the difference between the wages paid to Singh and the minimum wages payable to him, for the period October, 1992 to September, 1995.
However, the court said “such magnanimity appeared to have dawned on the club too late in the day” as despite not obtaining any stay from this court, it was admitted that no payment in accordance with the award has been made to the man and he has been been paid only litigation expenses.
“This court is, therefore, constrained to observe that any reluctance on the part of an employer, to award minimum wages for a workman for the period during which he had admittedly worked, is not only illegal and immoral but also invites criminal liability.
“Such an attitude erodes the very foundations of a socialist society which the preamble of the Constitution professes us to be, and belies the promises held out to every citizen by the Constitution,” it said.
(With inputs from PTI)