All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Vijay and Anr

ORDER o

18.10.2012 CAV. No. 97612012 Since the learned counsel has put appearance on caveat stands discharged. CM. No. 16392120L2 (for exemption) Exernption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 6068/2012 In view of the common judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.5944120L2, the instant petition is accordingiy disposed of. CM. No. tr 639L/2012 (for stav) With the disposal of the petition itselt-. the infiuc,tuous. The sarne is Cisposed of accordingly. instant application has become SURESH KAI"[, J. Versus, VIJAY AND ANR Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Advs. forR2. behalf of the caveator. the OCTOBER 18, 2012lsb W.P.(c) No.5068/20L2 q ,{N THItr X{[GH CO{JR.T OF DEI.IIX AT NEW DtrX-X{]t ' Date of Decision:. 18.10.2012 w"r'"rq sg++tzolz S TJ I,T\BFI INTERNATIONAL S OCIAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION ..... Petitioner Through: Ml. Anr,rrag Dibey, Mr. D.P' Pandey and Ml. Meenesh DubeY, Advocates Verstts RT.jGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) & oRS' .-.. ResPondents Through: Ms. Sweety Manchanda, CGSC for Respondent No. 1. Mr..Vidya ]'{and Shanna, R2. Mr. Rajat Ifutyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. for R3 AND -|-W.n,.(C)6059/2012&CM.No.16373-74/2012 AI-l-INDTA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ""' Petitioner' Through: Nfi'. Rajat I(atyal and Mr' Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Vet'stts VIDYA NAND SFIARMA ANDANR ""' Responclents Through: Respondent No. 1 in person' Mr. Anr-rlag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. iVieenesh DtrbeY, Advs-forR2' AND -t-ALt-TNDIA II\lS]'[TUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES "" Pe'titioner Thr.oLrglr: Mr. Rajat I(atyai and Mr. Sanjeev .Ioshi, W.l'.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 . Advs. \o C) ..... ResPondents Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Advs. forR2. ,Ai\{D . w.p.(c) 606x/2012 & CM. NO. 16377-78/2012, cAV. 973/20n2 AI-I-, INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... PEtitiONCT' T'hlough: Mr. Rajat l(atyal ancl Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Versus COVIND AND ANR ""' ResPondents Thlough: Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh DubeY, Advs' forR2' AND., 6062120X2 & CM" NO,. 163?9-80/2012' CAV. 974 AI,I, INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES I'hrough: Mr. Rajat I(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Jbshi, Advs. Verstts Versus MAI.IESI{ AND ANR Through: ASI-IO1{ AND ANR Thlough: ..... ResPondents' Mr. Anrrag Dubey, Mt. D.P. Fancley and Mr..Meenesh Dlrbey, Advs. forR2. ..... Respondents Page Z of 35 -t- -t-Advs. Vet'sr-ts MUI(ESFI YADAV AND ANR W.P.(C) Nos. sgilztr, 6A59-68/2012 AI.{D w"P.(c) 6053/2012 & CIV[. No. 16381-82/2012 A[,I, INDIA INSTITU'IE OIT \4trDICAL SCTENCES ..... I}CtitiONCT Through: Vir. Rajat I(atynl and Mr. Sanieev Jcshi, t\ a a Thror"rgh: Mr'. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh Dr"rbey, Advs. forR2. AhID w"T'.(C) 5064/2012 & CM. NO. 16383-84/20n2 A[,]- INDIA INSTITT]TE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat l(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Verslts DFIARAMVIR AND ANR "" Respondents Tlirough: Mr'. Anurag Dubey, IVft'. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh DubeY, Advs-forR2. AND w.x)"(c\ 606si2012 & cr/r. No. 16385-86/20.12 AT,I. INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ...., PCtitiOTTET Tlirough: Mr. Itajat I(atyal and lVIr, Sanjeev .loshi, . Advs. Versus z,Mr oo;,li:|";t*' Mr. Meenesh l)ubeY, Advs. for R2. AND -r-W.trD.(O 6066/2012 & CI\{. NO. 163E7-88/20n2" CAV. 977l20X2 A[-,I,INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAI, SCIENCES 'fhror-rgh: Mr. Rajat I(atyal and Mr' Sanjeev Joshi, Aclvs. Vet'st'ts MAMTA ^t: A$',ro.tgn' Mr. Anu'ag Dr-rhey, Mr'o''' ;'ll:;Tii'"t NIr. \4eenesh DitbeY, Advs. forR2' -F Versr-ts W. P. (C),Nos. 59'14, 6059-68 /2012 \\ a A}ID -t-w.P.(O 5067/2012 & CIU. N0. X6389-90/2012, c.A.v. 975/201t2 I\I-,I, INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner Thlough: Mr. Rajat l(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. . Versus IIAI-,AMURGAN & ANR """ Reipondents Thlor-rgh: Mr. Anulag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pancley and Mr. Meenesh DubeY, Advs. forR2. AhID w.P.(C\ 6068/2012 &.CM. NO. 16391-92/20X2. CAV. 976l20n2 I\t,I-TNDIA INSTII'UTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... PCtitiONET Through: Mr'. Rajat Ifutyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Aclvs. Verstts Vl.l;\Y AND ANII ""' ResPondents Througli: Mr'. Anurag Dr"rbe-y, N4r. D-P. Pa-ndey ancl Mr. Meeriesh Dr-ibeY, Advs. forR2. O -t-n .|l-. co itAIv[: HON'tstr-XI Mf{.. JIUSTICIT SUR.ESFI X<AIT OITDER. .,/o 1E.10.20L2 sumlls-ll-i(-][,.I.-(oral) C.AV" No. gtflnUlL' Sinoe [he leamed counsel has ptrt ap]rearance on caveaL s La.ncl s cl ischar"gecl. CV{" 1\o. X2241/2012 (fon exernption) ij>:em1ttiotr alIoq'ec[, sr-rbject to a].I jr-rs| exceptiops' 'I'tre application stanC$ disposed of. W. P.iC) tlo.s. 5944, 6059-6812012 behalf of the c'aveator, the O juclgrlent' cliscLrssecl ?. 'flie ltetitioner-Sulabh lnternational Social' Service Olganization-and r.eslronderrI No. 3, Directol All India Institutes of Meclical Sciences, New Delhi, by way ol'clil't'erelt writ petitions, ale challenging the sustainability of the ordet dated

25.06.2012. ltassecl by the Regional Labor Comrnissioner. The Regionai Labor Clrir6rissiopcr, beipg the Authority ,,rndel the Minirnurn V/ages Act. allowecl tlre clai'r lietiLiorr rirat-has been frlecl by the lesponclent No.2 under Section 20(2) of lire Act. l'6e ALrthority also helcl that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 botli are severally arrcl-ioiritly responsible fbr the payrnent of the claim.

¶3Trac[s ol.this case a1'e that the petitionel and respondent No. 3 enterecl into an agreeprcpt 16r cleploymerit of the respondent No.2 for employment of cleaning and srveeping at the premises of i\ll India Insti[ute of M.edical Science, as such r-esponclenr No. 2 rvolkecl dLrring the period fiop 25.0I.2008 to 31.03.2010. 'l-6erealier, [he responclent ]{o. 2 fiied a wlit petition betbre this Courrt for the_ payp-rer1L of prinirrrnm wages. T'lie same was disposed of by the order dated '

17.02.?010, whereby the responclenl No. 2 was clirectecl to approach the a'p'opriate Forutrr. Accorclingly, the respondent No. 2 preferrecl a clairn \g a W.P"(C) I\os. 59.n4l20n2 & 6059-6068/2012 l. T'lre Sr-rlabh Intemational Social Selvice Orgarization, and the A11 Inclia ,lrrstil.Lrte of Vledical Sciences, New Delhi, by way of the present petitions, ar'e cliallerrgilg the sr-rstairrability of tlie order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Regional I.abor Conrlissioner. Since all the petitions have arisen from the common otdeL, therefbr-e, this Cor,u-t has clecided to dispose of all the petitions by this common The facts of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5944120L2 would be inter alia.beingthe lead matter. + W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68120L2 \\ a C applicalion befote tlie Authority under the Minimnm Wages Act; same has been allowe<l by 11't. irriltr-lgrred order. tl.. "L'he moot qLrestion for the consiclelation in these writ petitions is that whether the allegecl volunteers, deployed through the petitioner, namely Sr-rlabh Ilterriatiorral Or-ganization, are entitled to get the minimum wages under the Minirrinrn Wages Act.

¶5'l"he petitioner Sulabl'r International has relied upon the judgment delivered irr Wr.it pelition No. 3408 lI9B9 by the Fligh Cor-rrl of Patna, whereiir the saicl Couut observecl as ltncler: "7'he Peti.ti.oner establishm.ent has set tp lavatories and bathrooms, the c'6nstt.rrcti.on being of very sirnple in natttre for the use of the ptrhl.ic: tvhiclt need not be cl.eaned b1t the sccvenger nor does it recluit"e c,urr,.yilg oJ' crnlt night soil on' antyone's ltead. Further, the jobless sccnengers or other persons renderecl vvithout employment are novv betipg itnpartecl. voca,tional training i.n centet's whtch may help them to /incl-iobs. For this ptLrpose it has a large nrtntber of voltLnteers vvho ct1e paicl sntcrll sLtnxs of ntoney as pocket money for their poclcet exp(lnses. It is trarc that in eva"! case of industry, the element of profit tr.ntl l6s,s neecl not be there yet as I rea.d the aforesaid dectsion of the Sttltreme Cottrt, the defi.nition cattnot be extended to a purelt, ttothrntar)t organization like the Petitictner establishment vvhich is t,ctrlcin.g for pttblic goocl an.cl in the irfterest of fhe vveaker Secti.on of lhet sor:iefit. "

¶6Aclopripg the observation made in the above judgment, Mt. K.T.S' Tulsi, lear-rrecl Serrioi-Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contencls that the iprplglccl or.cler is iltegal, since there i:; no relationship of ernployer and.employr"t rryhic5 is a prer.eclLrisite for the application of the Minirnum Wages Act. I{e pointed oLrt tSat tlie objecl of the establishrnent is to liberate the scavengers frorn the sub frurrrarr gcc.r.rlratiorr; ancl is a voluntarl, philantlrropic organtzatiou canying or-rt its activiLir:s ol..l ,.l.lo profit ancl no loss basis". Secondly, the petitioner has r-elied Llpon W.P.(C) Nlos. 59zl:1, 6059-68 /2012 \r oc a circurlirr clatecl 03.04.2001 issued by Jt. Labor Commissioner, New Delhi wherein t5e ap;:lica[io1 ol'Labor Laws has been exclucled qua petitioner establishrnent. The saicl circular is reprodttcecl as nnder: ,'GOI/T. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TEHMTORY OF DELHI LABOUR DEPARTMENT ] S-RAJPUR ROAD.. DELTil-] ] OO54 No. I : I29l Dated: 03.04.2001 CIRCULAR [-lon1t. Chcrirtnan, A[/S Sttlabh International Social Service Organisation, RZ-83, Iulahavir Enclave Palam, Dabri Marg, Netv Oiitrr-10045, has applied that the provisions of labour laws are not oppli,cable on their organtztrtion on the basis of the follotving grottncls:- il Thot it is a Society registered mcler the Societies Registrati.on Act, l860 b) That it is vohtntary philanthropf c organization' c) That it i,s carrlting ottt its activities on "No Profit and No bu,s is. cl) That. it yvas consiclered. as not ctn. 'Ind.ustry" aS defined in Section 2(j) of the Inclrtstrial Dispt,ftes Act, 1947 by the Hon'ble Fligh .Cgrrrt ,t'Pona ancl the same v)os acceptecl by the Hon'ble Sttprente (oru'i o/-lndicr. e) i'hctt the Governmettt of Orissa, I(arnatalca and Andh'ra Pruclesh consiclering that it was nei.ther an "Industty" nor a "Cgmtneycial Establishntent" issrLed instrctctions to their fficers not to anfbrce the labotLr lav,s and keep the above said judgments itt vievv' vvltile d.ea.ling with the said organization. ./) Thctt tltat Goyerntnent of Bihar also accorded exemption to it, "fi'onr appl.icability of the prot'isions of the "Shbp & Establishmertt A{.'1", ct,s ctppli.ca.ble in their State. A.lie r the exantinatlon of above applicaliott, it appears that the above s:aicl orga.niztttton is a nort-profit t,oltrn.tary social organization and is ca.rrl,irig ottl its activities on "No Profit and No loss" basis for the ,uelicrri oJ' the httntanity, ancl as srrch is neither an industry nor an E,sirltlishntent. FIence, all the ntborclinate ofiices in. dffirent States hat,e been instrztctecl to keep.the ctbove tn vievv, tvhile dealing vvith the Loss " .) o W. P.(C) trlos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 u, 0c ctbl\,e saicl organization for the plil'pose of enforcement of labow' latvs. l-lctn'ble Lligh Court of Patna in the matter of IWs Stlabh Internctti.onal V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. held vide their judgtnent clcttecl 09.02. I 990 that the Petitioner management/organization, i.e., lUt/s StLlalth International Social Service Organization zs not ctn inchrstrv ypithin the rnecming o/'section 2(i) of the Indt'rctrial Dispt'ftes' tlcl. 1g47. FIon'bl.e Stprnte Covu"t of Inclia vide order datecl t7.02. t994 ancl 2a.03.1996 dismis:;ed civil Appectl. a.nd Review Petition in tlte matter of "Bhartfta Sttlabh Sailchhlaya Kar"amchari Scrng vs. Sulabh International & Ors", thereby upholding the sante ttievt, as cleciclecl by the Hon'ble High Cot'rt of Patna. 'fhe Got,t. o/' Orissct, I(arnataka, Andhra Pradesh & Govt. of Bihar i,s,s,ttecl ciyc'uLays/instrttctions to their st'tbordinate officers to enforce the lctltor.t.r latr,s in vievv of above said jttdgments-Copies of the above scriil jt,rclgntents an.cl rel.evant ch'crtlars as isstred by dffirent State (i ov e r n rn e n.f s a r e en c I o s e cI .for r eady r efbr enc e .The Alett"opolitan Magistrate, Delhi. hcts also decided on 22.03.1997 thctl the. protti.sions of Minintrn'n. Wages Act are..not applicable to the saicl Or[anizcttion-Cops' o.f ttze said jtdgment is'also enclosed' /-[ertce, in ;;z.rch circrunstances alt the Branch OfJicers of the ' Depcrriment ythile.dealing with the sbove said Organization' are hert,lt, instrttctecl to kee.p lhe above .fctcts and -itdgments in viet'v for tl,te lnrrpo,\e o./'enforcetnenl of la.botrr Lcms and.for complian.ce of the rritt.,t,e ,snicljLtcl.qrnenrs in letter a.ncl spi,it. U. KU.IIIAR) Jt. Lahot'tr C ommis s ioiler " responclent No.3 Dilector, All lndia Institute of Medical Sciences is the tlre Writ Petitions 1\o. 605912012, 606012012, 6061120t2, 606212012, (t0(t3/20i2, (;064120.2, 606512012, 606612012, 606712012 &' 606812012 cSallerrgirig the srrrrre on the preposition that the relationship between the petitioner: hereitr rutc! thc respolrclelrt No. 2 not established as "employer'" and "elnpi{r1'ss" the Minirnrirr Wages Act. Therefore, the lespondent No. 3 application of the provisions of the Minirnr-rm Wages Act rn'orrld clc i'lnecl not ancl r101 contctrcls; Liiat the itncler the Act to pay the minimum r''rages to the' W.P.(C) Nos. 59/14, 6059-68/2012 Page B of 35 \1 ( c resrrorlclerll No. 2. Tlie responclent No. 3 also bought to the notice that the non existe.ce ol. relatioriship as "employee ancl ernployer" between the petitionel and trie responcre't No. 2 wo'rd render that the irnpr-rgned order is void ab initio' B. T5e Ar-rth.rity uncler the Act has taken note of the"pleadings and frame.d'the lbl towirrg issltes, uamelY,

(i) Whether the Minimum Wages Act, I94B is applicable only to 'industry" ,establisli'rent, and 'enteLprise', and not to voluntary social service organrzation of cha ritab I e ancl philantliropic natltle'

(ii) Whether AIIMS or Sulabh lntemational 'should be deemed to be the 'eptployel' urrcler the Act having responsibility to pay minimlrm wages'

(iii) whether the persons associated with sulabh International are 'employees' within tlte meaniug uttder the Act'

(iv) Wlict.lrer-exernption of employer from liability in certain cases under Section 23 applies to claim cases.

(v) whether-the Hon',ble Patna High court's order in cwJC No. 3408 of 1989 has a lrearirrg on this case. Orr the issues mentioned above, the learned Authority held that the petitioner: aricl l6e r-cspouclept 1rto. 3 ale coverecl undel the definition of "etnployel"" as clefinecl in sectiorr 2(e) ot the Act since the responclent No. 2 was deployed or ernpioyed by t6e res'oncle't No. 3 through the petitioner. Therefore, the Authority has reached to the co.olr_rsio^ that the petitioner and the 'espondent No. 3 are employers for the plrrl)ose o'f iletenriining tlie liability under the Minimum Wages. Act' Moreover'' it also co.siclerec{ the fact that the cluty wl'rich was per*formed by the respondent No'2 rvas the sc.hech-rlecl employment which is defined in section 2(g) of the N{inimun'r I I W. P.(C) Nlos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 Page 9 of35 \r 0o Wages Act i,uicl the Central Government has fixed rninimum rate of wages vide notiflcation No.S.O . 1994(E) dated 7.08.2008 (). As regarcls tlie contentions based on the judgment of Patna High Cor-u1 in Wr-it Petitiop No. 340811989, the Ar-rthority under the Minimum Wages Act has poinlecl olt t6at the said judgrnent was not applicable in the issue of payment of Minirlr-rpr Wages Act. It was also differeniiated on the aspect of the issties, as in t6e above saicl judgrneril the issue was the construction of 'latrines and ltrinals' by tlie Petitioner for the r-rse of the public which was held to be not "industl:y" rvhereas, the issue involved in tlie clairn application was sweeping and cleaning in the establishment of tlie lesponclent No:3 by the petitioner in the capacity as a contractor-or ar1 ourtsourcecl agency. Accolclingly, the Autholity uncler the Act allorvcel tfte claim application that has been tiled by tlre respondent No.2

¶10lf is intportant to note that the Ar-rtholity has come to a specific conclusiou t6at. t6e patrrri lligh Conrt.juclgrlent is not applicable in the present case, rvherein tlie aborre saicl cilcular of labor departrnent is also based on the above said .lurclgr1e6t. lnrportantly, tlie petitioner also stlongly relies upon the dictum of W.p.No.3 408/1989 ol Patna High Court. Iir this context, it may be reievant to reltrocluce the lelevant paraglaphs of the saicl judgrnent as uncler: "6. colcltrcl.ing, therefore, r hat,e no hesitati.on in holding, fi.rstfit, thrrt the so-callecl tmion is enlirely, spuriorts. It has no sanctity of lat'v t,tot" cl.oes it represent anyone who ca'n be treated to be a v,orlcrnan' of thu Petitioner estabLislmtent. Infact, it i.s a self-styled unton of ceriai.n per,eops yr,l,tose ntotive is not ottly lartdable bttt entirely mala rtdu-I httt,e also no hesitat'i.on in hoiching that thts v,as (t case, primari\t, itt rvl"tic,h no refbrence shottl.cl ha.ve been ntade nterely on the basis oJ'a, ,t<tlitu4t ntateria.l tl'ttlt i.s' the notficcttion recognfzing the Union. In the lig.ht t/ the,yLb,sequeni notificatittn cts contained ln Annexure 4, the ' tt.tiltori.ti.es ,sh.oulcl have been \v'sll llchtisecl to examine, before malcing o t,deyeitce, whether the (Jnion ntaking the demand was a uniott t W. P.(C) Nc,s. 5944, 6059-68 12012 Page 1C oi l*5 R sc ,eculctifi.ecl b), latt, and. really represented tke workmen of the p et i t ii> n e t"-es; tubl is l1m ent which s ittntion w as sub s equently br ought itt to light rest,rl.ting in the isstnnce of tlnnextre 4' Even tf, I were to ,,,r,ru,,i,, nte tltat the State government vvas right in malcing the reference r.t[ registrcrtion alene, once it has come to ltght that the Union t'vhose irr,rirlurt ha,s ntcrcle the clemand, is not a (Jnion ireated in accorclance ',ith layrt ancl it cloes not consist of the persons who are the vvorlcm'ett ttl' the Petiti.oner establishrnent, then also" the reference and the c::on,seclLrential proceecling cannot be allot'ved to stand' I have, thet'efbre, no hesitation in clzLashtng the entire reference thus ,'enr,iering the conseqttential awarcl a nttllity'

¶7' [-[cnting held as above, the second poittt whether the petitioner-a,tkhlishntent is ct.n inch,ntry or not become,entirely academic because et,e, iJ i.t was helcl'to be an inclrtstry, the initiation of the proceeding it;;et/'Leing ba.cl cmcl it being not established that the demand has been ntode b), or ot't bel'tatf of an for a worlcman of the petitioner-e;;ttrblishment, no ayvarcl cotrld be macle against th.e petitioner'- estctltlishment cmcl the clemand ttade in ann.exure 3 could not be etttcrta.inecl, I, h.ott,et,er, wortlcl like to express nry opinion succinctly in regctrcl io this point also. UndotLbtedly, the lavv has cotttple.(U been cr"ltstal.li,zecl by the clecision. of the Sttpretne Court reported in AIti lgTB SC 548 iBorgolore Watir S,ppty ancl Sewerage Boarcl vs' A. tlcljaplta crncl otl'ters) relating to ty'pes of establishments that conte t,ithin ih'u ,trfi.rition set out in Section 2(J)of the Act. The definition in Section 2(j) of the tlct of thewort{ "Indtntry" has been givett awide rterrning intbraci.ng t'vit\tin its a.mbit ct l.arge nmtber of organizatiotts tpltit:lt trtotrld ,o,ni'tvithin the ncitrre of tlrc Institt'ttion. set otft btft is e;;;;enli.ctl in every case vvhere the 'c1t'testion ,s raisqd whether^an e,ttabli,shment is an inchtstry vttthin the meaning of Sectton 2(i) of the Act lhat certaitt relevant facttral data have to be found' If an e,strtblishntent is rntclottbtedly an indttstry establishedfor the purpo,se of' business, tracle, ttncl.ertaki.ng manttfactLtre or calling of etnployers antl it incltrcles the calling, Set'''ices, employment, hattdicraft, or inchn'trial occtLpatiort or a.vocation of workmen, that being an e,s,lttl,lishtrtent of trntlothted has in regard to its character of being an' irtclrr,s'try; then nn.rch aclo is ttot reclttirec{'for applyittg the provisions of tlte Incl:ustyicil Displftes Act in all its ctspect. The problerrt arises oyly ythert an establisirttent by the ttery natt'trb of its creation' extent and its ,'; p.Lu,l)o,se /br tt,h|ch it tlta.s establishecl cannot 9x facie be described as ,'; W.P.(C) l\os. 5944, 6059-68/2012 co crn lrtcltrshlt then it can onbt bs brottght in to the ambit of the definition rt'Section 2(.D of the Act on the basis of ascertainable facts brought iborrt b1t cletailed incptiry in an award proceeding or at the level of the State Goventntent malcing the reference. The onus would lie on the so cullccl y,orlcnten to bring on the record, cogent and relevant materials to shoyt that not onl.y thelt are the members of such establishment but crl;;q tha.l the organization is in fact ftmctioning in the manner vvhiclt bt.inlys it t,r,ithin the clefinition oJ"indr'tstry.'. In the instant case, apart ./i'orit tl"te b1:c l.av,s cmd the att.dit report of the managem.ent and fot'u' ytitnrzs,ses exa.rninecJ by the workmen, nothing has'been brought on the rec,ord to shotrt .the manner in v'hich really the Petitioner establ.ishltent is' Ji,utctioning. In fact, the Petittoner establishntent cloint to lte a. vol.tmtary) organizcrtion of social wo'rkers who have gcrf ltet'ecl together to v,ork on a proiect by which apart from others the -l.trrrizcrn,y c'otrlcl lte reliettecl. front performing the inht'tman duties of ,.6171.1ting. night ,soil on their heads. The o.ther ptrposes for th.e esta.bliihtnent of the Petitioner -organization have been set oLtt in the ttint,i rrncl objects and appear primarily to'reitder certain specific bcnef it,s .for the ntember of the ptrblic [n various spheres of everyday lifb. F'or the,se pln'poses, the Petitfoner establishm.ent has been set up ,.,l,lrich is technicctlly describecl as "Stt/abh Sattc.hal.aya". The l)elirioner es'labl.ishntent has set ttp l.avatori.es and bathrqom's, the con;;tt.ltct/on 'being of verlt si.mple in. natou'e for the use of the publ,ic which neecl. nol be c.leaned by the scavenger nor does it recluire cartlting o.f crnlt night soil on' cftxyone's head. Further, the jobless sc(n,enget's or other persons rendered'withOut employment are not'tt be,irrg.impurted voccttional training'in. centers vvhich may help them to .fincl .jctbs. ITor this pttrpose it has cL large ntrmber of volunteers vvh.o "are"paicl smttll ,r.,,ir, -oJ" money cts poclcet money for their poclcet ,*1,r,i'rsur. [l is tnrc that it't ert€rl case of indt'tstry, the element of profit artcl lt>;;s neecl not be there yel as I rectd the aforesaid decisi'on of the Strpreme Cotu't, the .definil.i.on cawlot be extended io a pt'n^eft ,,oi1r,,r1ory orga.nizcttiort lilce the Petitioner establishment vvhiclt is vyorking fo, ptibltc good and tn tlte interest of the wealcer Sectirtn of lhe ;;ocietlt tmless relevantfacts are proved. In my vietv, it is incorrect !() ,\cn) on tlte basis of the aims artcl objects of th.e organizatiott that lhirsc t:crnnol be accompli'shed b)''vol'untary vvorkers' The aints ctnd ob.jects oJ' ary establishntent cu"e ah't'ays extensive and goes everl Itit,,tncJ 7lte crctrtal v,orlc tltcti the establishment undertakes. The ipso cli.xit of fott.r.y,or'lcrnen ttll of whont claint tO be no longer in service of t W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 Page 12 of35 {\ co lhe estcLblishrnent and the aitn aytd obiects can hardly iustify the infbrence thcrt the establishment is an tndrtstry. Mt'rch more than. this vvas neetlecl to be proved. B. I hcrve, th.erefore, ne hesitation in holding that there was no srfficient et,iclence on iecord to hold that the petitioner-establishment i,t"nn inchrstnt yvithin the meantng o,f Section 2(J) of the Act ancl ihe clec i :; it>rts n/' the Supreme Court' I l. 'l'6e reaclilg of the foregoing paragraphs in the saicl judgment makes it clear that Lhe issire was 1ot the application of the payment of Minimum Wages Act; but t5e IrrclLrstrial Disputes Act. Two issues were involvecl, primarily the scofe of the clellririo. o['irrclurstrial dispute as clefined in Section 2(k) of the Indttstrial Dispt"ttes Act" arrcl Llie CoLrrt ruled that the clispute which was referred was not an industrial clispr-rle since; it was not ;eferted by the wollcrnen in the establishrrent. Secondly, or.l L5e issLre whether the petitioner herein, namely, Sulabh International is an irrclr-rsl.ry or-not, the Patna l{igh Court held that, being a purely volr-rntaly orgarrizal.i6rr, worlcirrg lol the public goocl and for the benefit of weaker Sections in l5e sclciety r;6e cleFurition of "inclustry".coulcl not extent to the Petitioner.

¶12IL is legally I'r-rnclarnental to note that the reasoning of the jr-rdgrnent florvs fio'r tlre pr6visions of the Indr-rstlial Disputes Act; not from the Minimum Wages Act. Signilicaltly, the existerice of the petitiott"r is a voluntary organization is cli'fle re't ll-3pr as cornpared to cleployrnent of pelsons as volunteers thlough the petiliorrer-. Irr the latter categoly the petitionel stands in the different fboting as co..r''recl to the l'ormer; that is as an employer. Therefore, the leamecl Authority ru'cler tlie vlinimurrn Wages Act opined that the said judgment has no bearing in the issLrc irrvolvecl. l:1. oric of tlre most im.pofiant aspects for consideration is that the responclent l\o.2 rvas servi'g tlie petitio'er as a'';olunteer; not as an employee. Therefore, the t W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6O59:68/20t2 Page L3 of 35 q{ oc conl.cntiorl wers that the existerrce of "employee-employel" relationshtp ts a stne cltto tlotr lbr the, application of the lVlinimum Wages Act. The root of this prcipqrsilio1 uras bzrsecl on the agreement execute'cl between the petitionel and r-esporrclcrrt No.3 as exhibitecl as annexure P-3 in Writ Petition No.-605912012. -the fit.st party itr the agreement was the respondent No.3 whereas the petitioner was seco.cl 'arty. For the proper evaluation of the said aspect, it is convenient to reproclr-rce 15e relevant terms ancl conditions in the said agreement as under: "-l'l.te (tgreernent bettveen Fi.rst Party and Second Party t'vitnesseth as 1te'r' Ict'rtr,e crnrl conditions setforth hereunder' t. The Second Parqt will have to provide adecluate vohrntary social y,orlcers for cleaning. The tinting of the deployment of the t,ctlunta.ryt soc/ctl yvorlcers yvorilcl be according to the needs of the Dr. BRAIRCFI, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar'

¶2No reJttse/garbttge will be dtunped b1t thg volttntary social vvot'lrers in l.he otr)ert trenches, hedge'

¶3Remova"l of' the cleqd body oJ Dogs/Cats/Rats/Monlceys etc. tr:ithin hlto hotrs after receivtng the complaintwithoutfail.

¶4Secctncl Party shall prottide the. f[ottse Keeping sertices on a/.1 ctrlgndar clalt,s Srmclays inchrcling Gazetted Holidays i.e. the titting of tl.ts cleploltntent of the stcrfftttou.l.cl be accordin.g to the needs of the Dr. t] liA I RC t-\, A I I A'{5, Ansari Nagar'

¶5'l-lte Seconcl Pcn'ty shall provide I0 Nos. of Sulabh voluntarv' ,soc,ial yvorlcer,s cmcl one xtpervisor to cope vvith vvork load of scrnitcrtion thro'ugh.ottt the peri.ocl. o.f agreement. In case, the nt'tmber of ,grltrbh ttol.utntary social vvorkers engaged, is fot'tnd les's while it,n,yltcc:tion by a.ny Exec.utive ofiicer of the center, proportion.ate t:/tctt.g-e.s ypi.l.l be dec'h,rcted after ,li.scttssion with Second Pa'rty the as ,,",. ,lrrrygu;; s,ltecifiecl iyt Arutexut'e-!. The Exectttive officer oJ this t.',ottti.oct s1tnil be Asstt. ACnrn. Offt.er AIIMS (as nominee of Dt". B [iAI RC H, A I liVIS, Ans ari Nagcu")'

¶6The Seconcl Party shalt maintain the pomplaint book for cli//i:rent oyeas, tvhich ,,r,iil b, ritcrcle available to the supervtsory stcff' A W.P.(C) [Jos. 59,',14, 6059-68/2012' ,e c0 Tlte Secopcl. Parqt yvill use the manpower only at the.place's wherever cluthorized.

7.. The Seconcl Party shall provicle tuvo sets of Apron including Dr' tlRtl1RCFI, AIIMS to its yoltmtaryt social vvorkers and ensure that they shall y)ectr it trthile on d'tLty and maintai'n them clean' g. That the voltmtarlt social yvor'kers dept'Lted by the Second Party shnll rtot be belot'v the age of IB year:'

¶9The ttolttntary social vvorlcers clepttted by the Second Party . shrntlrl nof interfere with the clut.ies of workers of the First Party.

¶10The Seconcl Party shall ensLre cmd gttarantee the conch'rct, behat,ior ancl honest of the voluntarlt social worlcers depafted by them. In ca,\e o.f any ntisc;onclrtct or any other damage or theft 9[ the propet.D) of nn First Partlt, the Second Party shall be responsible,for 'oll ;;ttch lo,sses or clantages after it is establtshed by holding proper encltri.rlt thcrt the ttolrmtarlt social yvorlcers cleptted by the Second Par6t ct t'e I'es pons ib I e.for thes e. I t. The t,oluntar'1t social workers engaged by the Second Parly ,sltall be o/' goocl charactet" ancl sotmd hqalth. And should be ' nteclicctlly fit cmcl this may be checked by Sentor Residents Dr' BtlA IRCLI, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar'

¶12In the event of any loss to the Dr. BMIRCH, AIIMS on accottttt ctf nep,ligence of ttoltmtat)t social worlcers, Second Party shall ntalce goctcl"thf, loss s'Lrstaine,l b1t the Dr. BRAIRCH, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar 'eilher Ltlt lhe t'eplctcentent or on pavment of adequate cotnpensation tvhicl,t tyi1l be cticiclecl by the Joint Cornmittee of both the parties after holt I i.n g n eces s aryt enquirY' t3. The f ir,st Party shall not be responsible for the paytneit of ltonot'Ctrirmt to the ttoltmtarlt sssial workers engaged by the Second Pttrllt ctncl ,shctl.i ensln"e time$t paytnent to them' t 4. The Seconcl Party shall provide vohtntary social workers Lls per r.tpltrovecl terms ancl conclitions. I"he same shall be monitored by Sr' ,sti,nitcrtion Officer/Representcttive of the Dr. BRAIRCH, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar ancl if'the strength is fotmd less, proportionate recovery will be ntatle. W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68/20L2 e\ \, \z-

¶15The Seconcl Porty 'vvill have,to prodttce the monthly bill along vtitl't the certificate of satisfactorlt performctncefrom the Sr. Sanitatiott O/.fir:er/Sanilation ln,spector to ihe-srrb*ittecl on the B'h of every cittlendtrr tnontlc for verificaliot't by the Executive Officer and scune shcrll be pcricltvi.thin 10 days by the First Party. t6. Seconcl Party shall not appoint any Sttb-contractor/Agent to carry otrt itnlt obligations ttncler the avvarded period of work.

¶17The Fh'st'Pa.r't1; sl'tall provid.e the c1t'tality cleaning material to llte ,secortc! Parqt aS per reqttirement ci |ts cost, but the Second Parht shall ntalce this cletnctnd fu advance so that worlc does not suffer' 1(9. The Seconcl Party Dr. BRAIRCH, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar shall not be T'esponsi.bte for cmy compensa.tion vvhich may be required to be ptticl to the ttolttntat)t social yvorkers of the Seconcl Party consecluent r tpo t1 a n1t i ni ttt"1t/ttti s hap.

¶19'l'he SeconcL Parlt shalt be respttnsible to the Head of the Dr' Btl,,il!lCH, AIII/IS, Att,ca,'i Nagar or any ffice authorized b7' lx;7,,11,u'' 'fii, cxecztti'on oJ-clay to du.y t'vork of the cqnxpLts ' The Sec,Ltrifit i.n,strL.tctions/orclers i.sstted b)' the Dr. BMIRCH, AIIMS, Ansr:ri Na[ar .fr.orn time'to tinte shall ctlso be followecl b1t the Secottd P cr r l.tt a.n cl vrtl t uttary s oci ctl iv or kers

¶10'l'he F ir,st Pcn^ht reserves the rights to awarcl the arect J'or c,leurting, cltstipg etc. ttttt of vcn'iotts h,Lildings/loccttions a.nd ca.n a.ny time witltclrcnv some ar€ct;' or ctdcl som.e additional areas from th'e conlroct tvi.lhotft assigning ctttl; rectsot't after giving one m'onth"s rtolic:c. 2 t. The contract can be tenttinatecl b), the First Pa'rty Dr. IllltllRC'FI, Ai{A[S, Ansari. Nagctr b1t glving one month's notice' Th'e ,iccit:tcl Pttr'|1., ca'n alsO terrttinale the cttntract by ghing ovte ntonth's rtol. it'e'.

¶12No toltmtary socictl yvoikers of the Second Party shall stay i'it Iheutntpusbellonclpre,scr.i|lecldlty'horu"s.|Th.ilegoillgotltoftheDr. UtllIRCH, AIIMS, Ansari. Nagar , Sec'ctncl Party will go tht"ough the chet:lc b1t securifi; at variotrs exists of the Dr. BRAIRCH, AIIIVIS' ,4nsari Nagar . i W.P.(C) l\os. 5944, 5059-68/20t2 QT t/'

¶23It is./:urtlter agreecl that there vvoulcl be absolrttely no scope of escttltrtion payable b, the Fit^st Parlt on accotrnt of increase in hr>norttriynt of voltmtary social vvorkers zmless mutually agreed to.

¶24[t is ctgreecl that in case the Second Partyfails to perform any of thc ternts c,icl corclitions of this agreement or commits arry breach in conl,crct, the Fir,ct Party may cancel the contract after giving r.easortable opporhmi,Dt and. iffotrnd ttnsatisfactory then by giving one monlh notice in tttri.ting to the Second Party'

¶25That the Seconcl Party shall issrte the iclentity cqrd to each of the ttoltmtarl., oe61al worlcer engaged as assoctate ntember for entty into the tt,orlc place of IIIIMS premises

¶26That i.1. case of any clispttte between the parttes aforesaid in ,e,s1tect. o.f this agreetnent, the matter shall be referred to a intttually ctgi"eer{ ,ipo,,, Arbitrator by tt7e First Party ancl Hony., Asstt. Director of tlre Siconcl Party ancl the clecision of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be.final cmcl binding on both the pctrties'

¶27The rates teruns and conditions as per annexLtre I, II & III to this ctgreement tvil.l..fontt an integ'al pctrt of this agreement.'"

¶14I.clispr-rtably, tlie above saicl contract establishes the fact that the respondent No.2 rvas cleployecl in the prernises of respondent No. 3 for the employment'of clearrirrg thlor-rgh the petitioner'. It is tn-re that the cqntract entered between the parLies ref'ert; the resPondent No. 2 as "voluntary social worker". Despite of this rel'erence as; a volurnta'y social wo'ker, the respondent No. 2 has filed claim petitio^ *rrcler the Minirnum Wages Act; ancl therefore, the Authoritlz under' the Aot, Ielcl t[at tlie respoudent No.2 is not a volunteer. l-5. lVloreover, it is legally significant to trote and examine the natnre eLnd scoPe of trre zrbove co.tract i' the light of obser-rrations made by the suprerne cor'rrt in Feoples {Jrcion..fbr Demonatic Rights and ors vs. (Jnion of India 1982 (3) SAA

¶235-l'he relevaut paragraph is reproduced as nnder Page 17 of35 ':I W.P.(C) Nlos. 1i944, 6059-6tl 12012 ps I\d v

¶20Now the next tluestion..that arises for consideratiom is w,hetlaer there l's any breuEh of Article 23 when & person prot,irles trabour or service to the State or to any other person 'ond is paid less than the tminimum wflgefor it. It is obvious that' orcli.nctri,ly no one vvottld willingly supply labour or service to another for less than the minimt'rm tvage, when he lwtot'vs that ttncler tlie'la.t'r, he,ts entitlecl to get rninimttm wage for the labot'n" ,r,^ 5sntice protticlecl by htm. It may therefore be legitintately pres.Lrtllecl that when ct person providep labour or service to ctnother a.gainst receipt of remtt.neration vvhich is less than the nti.n.irntun tvctge, he is acting tmder the force of some compulsion tr]hich 6lyi1te,\ hint to yvorlc thottgh he is paid less than what he is etttitlecl ttncler law to receive. What Article 23 prohibits is forced lnho.ttr' ihat ls la.bo'tn' or service which a'person is forced to' protti.cle ancl force' which trozl.cl. molce st'rch labou.r or service ,fbr.cecl labotrr' tna)t ari.se in setteral ways."It may be phltsical .fityce u,hich tn.cry conlpel a person to provi.de labour or Serv'ice to onothet' or it rnalt be force exerted throttgh a legal provision sttc! cts a provisionfor imprisonntent or,fine in case the employee fails fo piotti.cle lctbotu' or Sert)ice ar it may even be compulsion arising' ..fi.otn hmger anc| pcl,ertl;, lvctrtt and, clestitt'tti,on. Any factor vvllici,l cleTtt'ittes ct person of u c!rci.ce of"alternatives and compel"s hint to atioltt rtne'partiutlctr coLffse oJ action mcLy properly be regarded ,r,, Tbrcn, cinct f laboLtr or service is compelled as a resLLlt of sucl't ,fbilru,, i.t tvctuicl we forccc! lqbo'tu"'. Where a person is stffiring ,'fi-ont htmgei or Stantatiort, whe.n he has no resoLtrces at all to. fight tlisease u' feecl his v'rfe and' childr en or even to hide their ';irkerlne,ss, tvltere tftter grindi.ng poverty has brolcen ltis bctclc an'd recl't.iced him to a stale of helpl.essness and.despair and' where n'o ctthet' cnrplolnrtenr /s a.vailctble to al'leviate the rigor of his ltotterfit, he y,ctrlc/ Inve iio 'cltoice b'tLt to clccept 9ny:'vork that 'comes hi.nt wfly, et'€n tf lhe rem'Lrneration offet'ed to hint 'is le-cs thcrn the ntiniriitui't vi'age. i-Ie tvot'tid be in no position to barga'in tpith lhe efixpl.o);er; he y,ottltl lidt,e to accept what is offerecl to hi.nt. tlncl in-clc;in'g so he \4'01116l be acting not as a free agent t'vith ^ ct cho1ce bent,eii,, crltet'natives bt.ft tmclei the compulsion of ec:t)rt1ltic cit'ctutts;:,ttcgS attcl lhe labottr oI" Ser-vice: providecl by hirrt. tr;oiltl be clearll; 'Jc-trcec! la'hoLu"' There is no rea'son \vh1t 1l'7s ti,r,to,d. fi>rced.' sho'ulcl be. reacl itt a ttu'rov' ttnd restricted nianner .e6r ds trt be cctnfinecl onlst to physical or l.ega.l force' particilct'rly W.P.(C) l\os. 5944, 6059-6812012 ?Y $ ./t-rv y)hen the national charter, its ftmdamental document has pr.onr.isecl to btild a new socialist repttblic where there Will be 'sr-tcio-economic jttstice for all and every one shall have the right to ytorlc,.to edr,tcation and to adeqttate means of livelihood. The Constittttion tnalcers have given LB one of the most renxarlcable cloc.trrrtents in history for trshet"ing in a new Socio-economic oyclet' ctntl the Constittttiort tthich they have forged for L$ has q social p?.tt"po,Se ctncl an ecottomic tnission and therefore evety word or 'phios, in the Constittttion mt'nt be interpreted in a mdnner vvhiclt 't,r,orrlcl. oclvance the socio-econonti.c objective of the ConstittLtiott. It is ,ot Lm often that tn capitalist society economic circumstan.ce exert mlrch greater presslffe on an individt'ml in clriving him to a partictla, irusu of action than phltsical compttlsion or force of lcgislatitte provisi.on. The word force' . nxust_ therefore be crlnstrttctecl to inchtde not only physical or legal force but also .fbrce ar-ising from the compulsi.on of economic circvunstance tyhich leaves no choic.e of alternatives to a person in want an'd conxpels hint to provicle labot'tr or service even though the rem'Lmeration reciivecl for it is less than the minimctm wage of coLtrse, if ct person provides labotn' "or Service to another against r.ecei.ltt i1'tiu ntinhnttnt wage, 'it tvottld not be possible to say that tl.te Labotn' or service provided by him is 'forced labow"' because l.tt: gets vthctt. he is entitled tmder lavv to receive. No it'tference can ,i^rrr,rrrblt be clrayvn i.n strch a case that he ts forced to provide Ittbotn" or service for the sitnple reason that he woul'd be provi.c{i.ng lobott' or service against receipt of what is la'tffiilly 'l4q)abl.e1o him .itrst lilce any other person who is not under tlrc 'fni'tu oJ' any complilsion. L[/e are lherefore of the view tltttt w,lrere fi person provides Isbour or Service to another for renrunerfition which is less than the minimum w&ge' the labowr ot serttice prot,ided by him clearly, .fatls within the scope und oynbit af th,e words forced lubour under Article 23. Such cI' ,erson i,ottl.cl be entitl.ecl to conte to the cottrt for enforcentent of 'his fi.rnclamental right tLnder Arti.cle 23 by asking the court to ilirect paymettt of the minimaun wage to him so !h!t-the lab,our'or ,gerttice prot,irled. by hi.m ceases io be 'forced labotu"' and the bre"tch of tlrticle 23 is remectied. It is therrforu clear that t'vherr the petitiotxers allegecl. that ntirtin'tltm wage was not paid to thc .u,o,jlr,rr",, employei by the contractors, the complaint was realh; W.P.(C) l\los. 5944, 6059-6Bl2Ot2 Page J.9 of 35 ls in effect ancl szrbstance a compla.int agai'nst violation of the ,fi,niantental right of the yvorlcrnen under Article 23. '16. Lhe q o

2.5. C.ontt'acttrtg qtd'-befot"e or ctfter the W.P.(C) Nos. 5944', 605!t-6812O12 Ar[icle 23 of the Constitr-rtion enacts a very imporlant fundamental right in lbllorvirrg 1.ertns: Artic:l.e 23 ; Prohibition of n"ffic in httman beings andforced labow'-

(t) frffic iy Inrntcm beings anri hegat and other similarforms offorcecl lctlxtt,rr aye prohibitecl ancl any contrantentton of this provision shall be an' a/lbnce prtttishabl'e in accordance with latt'' Q) Nothittg in tltis Ar:ticle shall prevent the State .fi'o* itttpoitng c6ntpt,tJsor.1,'r"rvir" for pttblic pltrposes, and in imposing such service the Staie shal.l not yt.ake any cliscrimination on groLtnds only of religion' race' cctsle or cla'g,s or anY of them'

¶17.T'5e. challepge 5erein is not aboutthe.enforceability of tl-re saicl contract; br-rt the r-rartur.e arrcl scope oIthe same isto be examinecl inthe lightof Artic]e23 of the Corrstilr-rLi6p, with the f,rnclings as regarcls the_diflferent fomrs of folc'ec1 lal;oLrr as. lrelcl i r.t Ferples Lrnion for Democratic lliglrts sntl Ors vs. (Jnion of India (' st'Lpr"it) 1br curlli*g 6Lrt t6e stancl of the lesponclentNo. 3 ancl the petitionet'. In the light of

1.5e above, t6e cleployn'rent ot'respondent No. as a social rn'orker is a new rnethod of fbr.cr:cl lnb<ltr-iri the society, wl'rich neecls to be curbed. The reading of the tenns ancl conclitions o1'the saicl contlact in telms with Alticle23 would establish the lact that, the responclent No. 2 uras working as arr "employee" not as a "volunteer" lB. It is alstl Pertinent Mirriruttttr Wages Acl. to examine the saicl contract with the provisions oi'the

¶19secl.iorr 25 oltlie Minirllllm wages Act reads as follows; Any contrctct or agreement, whetlrcr ntade' comm.enc.eni.ent of this Act, whereby o'n

¶20No. 3, entployee either relinqttishes or reduces his right to a minimLtm' ,'oie oJ wctges or any privilege or concession accruing to hint trncler this Act shall be nttll and void in so far as it purports to yechtce the ntininxlnix rate.of wa.ges fixed ttider this Act. 'l.herelbre, the contract enterecl between the petitioner and tlt" ,.rpondent woLrlcl not clisentitle the clairn of the l'esponclent No. 2 as aiemployee for: q c r"ninimunr wages ttncler the Minimunr' Wages Act'

¶21This court in jLrclgment cleliverecl on 24.02.2010 in writ Petition No' 378512007 held as utrcler: ', 16 Ttle object qncl policy of the LegislatrLre in enacting the At[ininntnt I4rages Act is to prevent exploitation ,of the worlcers cticl, .for thctt prrpose, it aints at fixation of minimunt wages t,r,ltici.t the ernployer mttst' pay. The' Legislature LtndoLLbtqdly intenclecl to ,tppty the Act to those incltrstries or localities in which btt rea.sol of-ror,r6 sLrch as rmoyganized labo1'r or absence of machinerl, /o, regttlation of wages, the wages paid to vtorlcers t4)et,e, in'th-e light of the general level of wages, and subsistence level, ina.cleqtnte. Conclitions of labor vary in dffirent indtLstries a.ncl' /ront ioca1ity to locali6t, cmd the expediency of fixing mini.mrtnt v)ages, ancl threats thereof depends largely Ltpotx clit;erse factors tt,hich in thei.r very nattn"e are variable and can Ttropeyly be ascertainecl by the Government which is in charge of the aclntinistration of the State. It ts to cctrry ot'tt effectively th'e tr/Ln.pose of this eTxactnxent that pbwer has bryn given'to the 'approltria"te Governm.ent to decide, wtth reference to local' c'rtncli.tf ors, tt,hether it is clesirable that minimunx wages sh'oul'd be .fixectittregcu"cltoanlts'1t'cl:tlecJtradeorindustt"y'inatxy !occrlit1,, ,,ri 6 n be cleentecl expeclient to do so, the rat^s at vtlilclt lhe tt,c,ges 5hotrlcl be fixect in respect of that indantty itt th'e locttli6t" Ilr orcler to plotect the interest of the ernpioyees, th.e Scope under Miriirirnni wages Act is i' r.vicrer perspective than the Indust'ial Disp'tes Act. Mininiun.r t/ages A.ct "Section 2 defiries as follows; W. P.(C) l\o.s. 594'1, 6059-68 2012

¶22the The Page 2L of 35 \cc q,

(e) ,,entplo1ter" rl,teans any person who employs whether directly oi" th,.o^gh another person or whether on behalf of himself or ctn)) othir person one'or tnore en'rployees in any scheduled entplottment in respect of which minintt'mt rqtes of wages have been fixecl tmcler thtt A"t and inchLdes except in st'tb-Sec{ion (3) o.f Section 26

(i)inafactorywherethereiscarriedonanysche&'iled enrltlolnrent in respect of which minimttm rates of_.tvages hcpe 'i"",, fixect tmcler this Act anv person named under clcru,se (fl of strb-Section (I) of Section 7 of the Factories Act I94B (63 ofl9a0 ds llxLlnager of thefactory; ,)

(itt) i.rt ctrttt other.case v,here there is ccu"ried on at. ,schechleclentpl'o1'ntentinrespectofwhfchnt'inimuntrates of' v,ages have been fixed atnder thi.s Act an)) person i'espoisfbl'e to the otvner -for the sttpervision an'd control o.1ine entployees or for tlte pavment oJ'wages; Wliereas tlre lrrclr-rstrial Dispute.s Acts, Section 2(g) defines employer:

(ii) in any schedttlecl emploltrttent n"!?l the control of any 'grvnr,rn','unt in Inclia in iespect of which minimrtm rates of lu,r,gu, have been fixed rmder this Act the person or atLthoritlt appointecl by st'rch government for the stryterttision ancl control of employees o-r where no per''otl oi atthot"itlt is so appointecl the head of the clepartrttent,'

(iii) in cut)) schechtlecl employment tmder any local attth.ori.tlt in. respect of wh.ich mininnun rates of wage's hatte biu, fixed tmcle, tl,tis Act tl.te persotxs appointed. by srrch autlioriflt fo, the sttpervision and control. of emploltees or trthere no person is so appoinied the chief exec'rttitte ofiiccr of lhe local cn'ihority,' ff) " EntPloruer " n7 eans-- 'ii i." t.e,latio,'lo cyt inclustrtt caliecl on by Qr under:the cu'tih'ot'itv^' 'r1' or1, depctr.tntent oJ" 3',i'-[the centrcl. Government or 7 sletg i_;.o,or,rnrint./, rhe authori4,, pt'escribed in this behalf, or vvhere nrt rtttthariit,'i:i pre'scribed, the head of the Ceparlment'' ?.) . L). W.P.(C) rrlor. 59'14, 6059"68 12012 '.d 3l

(ii) in relation to an tndt'tstry carrtecl on oy or on oenl atrthorify, tlie ch.ieJ'exectttive fficer of that authority,' i.n relation to an industry ccn"ried on bY or on behalf of a local

¶24I[ is important to n6te that the clefinition of employer in the Minimum Wages Act prescribes that ,,any pel.son who employees" falls under the category of errployer rvherein the clefinition of the employer in the Indr-rstrial Disputes Act is solely basecl or-r the clefinition of indr-rstry. Therefore, both the petitionel ahd the respbnclent lrto.3 qr-ralifies the test to be called as ernployel as per the provisions of Mini'rur'r wages Act. In the light of the above discussions, the relationship of the petiLio'er.ncl respondent No.3 with responcrentNo. 2 is established as employer ancl e'r'loyee. Responclent No.2 is entitled to get the minimtlm wages as pel the sche're or-trre co.sr.itr-rtio'of Inclia as well as the object of the Minim'm wages Act. 1948. Accorclingly, interference uncler Arlicles 226 and 2?1 of the ConstitLrLion of Inclia is not warranted 2_5. Mr.'"l.Lrlsi, leanrecl senior Advocate has f-urther submitted that since thele is rro r.elatiurrsSill cf eri-rployer and enlployee ancl the-petitioner being the volr-rn[ary or.garrizati.6, therelbre, Section 2 fi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot lre allpliecl on sttch organization'

¶26f.ile lias reliecl Lqlon a case of R.trttirarm antl Others Vs. State af Madhya Frnrlegh, (2012) 4 SCC 5/6, whelein while r:elying Lrpon the case of anion of Inrlia l/s"llsghubir singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754,the Supreme courl has held that ar l)ror'roLrrrcerrre.nt oI law by a Division Bench or a smaller number of Jr"rdges, artd in orclc; tfial sr-rch clecision wor-rlcl be bindilg' It has been held as undel:- ) "26. h't (Jnion of India' v' RaglnLbir Singh' tlte Crtnstitt'ttion Bench, spealcing through R' helcl ihtrs-'- (SCC P' 778, Para 2B) W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-6812012

(1989) 2 SCC 754, S. Pathalc, CJ, hqs 9v " 28. We are of opinion that a pronoLLncement of lat'v by a Division Bench of this Cotrt is binding on a Division Bench of the sanxe or ct smaller nttmber of J.dges, artd in orcler that sttch clecision be bincling, it is not necessary that it shottlcl be a decision rendered by the Full cot'n\t or a Constitt'ttion Bench of the CoLtrt. " q c

¶27x.i$t ,T,TX

¶28In Cltapclra Pralcashv. State oJ (JP, (2002) I0 SCC 710 " 2003 ,SCC (L&S) B0B , cI sttbseqttent Constttt'ttion Rench' rei.tera.tecl the vie:tv that hacl already been stated in RaghtLbir Singh (suPra)'

¶29ThtLs vieyvecl, Bhooraii (sttpra) was a binding precedent' crn.cl. tt,hen in ignorance qf it sttbsecpLent decisions have been . renclered, the c-oncept of per inctn'iam wottld come into plaTt' " I-le lras fi-rrther l.eliec] upon the juclgment of Suntlarias l{anyal'a{ Ehatiia & ors" vs. coltrector, Thcne Maharashira & ,ors., (1959) 3 SCC 396, wherein the SuDreure Court has obsen'ed as follows:- The other lirnb of the ctrgttment of counsel for tlze .appellctrtts relates to th.e n'tanner in which the tJi.gh Couv't. clislto,recl of the ntatter. It vt'as saicl that a decis'i'ort oJ'this Cortrt has been clisregarclecl alcl c1 bincling clecision of c,t co-oydina.te Bench oJ'the sanxe Cotu"t has been ignored' xxx 1,3. It trtottlcl be cl.ffictilt.7or t,ts to appreciate the jttdgrnent of the l-li.glr Crnt't. One tnttst rentetn.ber that pttrstit of the lat'v, Itrtt,ever glantorotrs it i,g, htis it,s ttvvn linritation on the Ben'ch' '[rt a nntl.ti-.jitclge coru't, tlte iuciget are botutd.by precedents ct'rut pr.ocecltn e. Thelt cortlcl ttse their discreticn only wh.en there is no cJeclar.e.cl. principle to befot"mcl, no rztle ancl no at'fihot'ity' The ,itrclic,ial. iecortrnt ctntl legal proprieiy^' demand. fhat t'vhe,e u' l.ear.necl si.ngte Jtrclge or a Division Bet'tch does not agree t't;iih the der:i.,sion of a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter W.P.(C) Ncs. 5944, 6059-6812012 3e sltall be referrecl to a larger pench. It is a sttbversion ofjudicial process n.ot to follovv this procedttre' " ' 2t\. The lear-necl senior-counsel has flirther referred the order.dated 27'II.2003 passecl by ttris Cor-rrt in Crl. Miscellaneous (Main) Nos' 3822,2933 to 2936' 3820-3B2r ol-2002 filecl by the M/s Sulabh International and Another against the orcler ol'I..abourr Euforcement Officer (C), Delhi 3, wherein this Courl has aiso reliecl Lrpor.r the.iLrclgment oIthe patna High Court ancl held that there is no relationship of mas[er arrcr serva.t between the petitioner and the persons being the vol,'tary . services.

¶29'l'he albresaicl orcler was challenged by the Government of NCT of Delhi by rviry or-a' sl-p (cr.r.) No. 1 69312006 datecl 23.02.2007, wherein the supreme courl has lrassecl tlre l'ollowing order:- ,, Tl,te ctttestion as to tvhether a prtblic rtility service, vvhiclt i.r crl'legecllt, carriec{ on by a Society on 'no profit no loss basis '' .u,or,lrib" an inchtstr;' iithin the meaning of the provisions of the Inclustri,al clisptttLs Act, I947, being pending decision before o ,u.r'u, J'rclge Bench in State o-f U'P' vs Jai Bir Singh' (JT 2005

(5) sc 170),.1,ve are of the optnion that the matter shottld be referred to a larger bench' The pcu,ties an,e given liber4; to mention the matter before ' I-lctn'ble thte Chief J,tsice or lt;le an appropriate applicationfor taggirtg this ca.ce witlc Jai Bir Singh (supra)' Let the recorcls be placect before Hon'ble the Ctitef Jttsticeoflnctia.forpassingappropriateorders.',,

¶30'l'he coorclinate Bench of this courl 0n 16.11.2009 in ctl' M'c' No' 3Btj4/2009 passed the olcier as follows:- .+ " Ah'.Tt'tlsi, learnecl' senior Advobate appearing for the petitioner sttbntits tltat the petitioner ls a vofutntcuy social organizcrt'iort engagecl in it''' t'vorlc of constrztcting ctnd Page.25 of 35 w.P.(C) Nos. lj9zi4, 6059-6812012 :3\ q o ntctinto.ipirtg lavatories and h.crs been. carrying on its activity on no pr.ofit aicl no loss basis for the welfare of the htLntanity-IuIr. Ttr.lsi lra,s clra.u,n attention of this cotrt to the Circular No. 1291 clatecl 3.4.2001 issttecl by the GNCT, whereby the Labottr Depcrrtntent has notified att lhe Branch offi'cers of the Detrtartnten.t that provisions oJ' labortr law wotild not be atrryl;ccrtion to the petittoners. Mr. Tnlsi also dravvs attentiort of the coru^t to the orcler dated 27.11.2003 passed by this court in . crl. Mis. (M) Nos. 3822/2002,2933/2002,2934/2002' 2g35/2002, 2936/2002, 3820/2002 and 3821/2002 and the orcler of the Divisi.on Bench of Patna High court in w.P.(c) no' 3408/Bb. Based on the saicl srtbmissions, Mr. Tttlsi submits that pr.otti;;ions of secti.ons 23 ancl 24 of the contract Labour (R & il ,4ct ca.inot be invokecl bt, the trtal. court against the Peti.tioner'. ln ctrl. M.A. No. 1358212089, the Trial cotul proceedings were stayed till the tiext clate of hearing. ,l I . ('jrr rhe sar.r.re issue whether the petitioner is zur industry within the meaning o['sectio' 2(j) oithe Inclr-rstrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether the Inclr-istriai as r,velI as l,abor-rr [,aws are applicableto the grganization, on 07.03'20II, this cor-'1 irr Cr.l. lVLCl. No. 3884/2009) passed the follouring order:- " Shorl questiorr for cletet'ntiniriion in tltis petition is tvhcther or not tl'te. petiti1ner sttlabh International is a'n 'i.nclustrSt' tvithin the meaning of Sectiort Z(i) uf the Indttstrial Disptttes Act ancl whether the inclttstrial' a,g well as labowr lavvs trre applicable to the organization. I hat,e been inforntecl that aforesaicl legal issue is pentling con,sidet'alion of ct Larger Bench. of Sttpreme Com"t and 'the /iriciing o.f llte Szprente Cotrt will obviot'nly intpact the s1s,..'1':;ic;n i, tltis petitiort. Thtts, decision on the petilion is clefbn^ecl. The petirion is, accorclingl),, cortsigned sine die with the ,ltsenttttion that either of the partie'g mey get it revived after thie clecisiort of the Strpreme Court on the issue'" q W. P.iC) Nr;s. 59421, 6051)-68/2012 Page 26 ol 35 3t q O

¶32h4r. V{Lrkul Gupta, lealned Senior Advocate, who argtted the petitions :firled by tlie All lrclia l.stit,te of Meclical Sciences has joined hands with Mr'. Tnlsi, lea'iecr se.ior Aclvocate on the regal issue and has further added that the r.e.sltorrdents have neitlrer challenged the a.greement nor the Memolaudltm of I,riclerstarrdirrg enterecl into between the. sulabh International and the A11 Inclia lrrstitirts o1, Meclical sciences. There is no eviclence on.record that the respondent was enrployecl by either of the organizations mentioned above and the iinpr-rgned crecisiorr is r,vithor-rt a1:plicatio'of rnincr ancl without any basis. Therefore, the same has to be set asicle.

¶33llefole the learuecl Authority rlnder the Minimum wages Act' ]948 and Regioual [-,abour Corrmissioner (Central), New Delhi and before this Couirt the silrrc issue wns raised that the petitioner is not an inch-rstry and the provisions of N4irrirrir-rr' wages Ac[, 1g4g, are not applicable to them as it is a voluntary social service orgapizatiol of charitable anct philalthropic nature, working on no profit ancl rro losr; basis. Therefore, it is neither an establishment nol an employer' It is lirrther s.brnittecl that the persons associatecl with sulabh I'ternatio'al are nqt eurltloyees or rvorlcers, br-rt a.l'e associate members of Sulabh International' r.errcleririg their 'olLr'tary social services for the upliftment of scavengers. The ob,ect o[-the associate members of Sulabh International is to rendbr social service a.cl 'ot to attairi per-sonal benefits, and also becanse they are not renciering any' ser.vices lrir Lhe organrzation but ale using the organizatronto coordinate ancl gr"ride their activities alo'g r.vith the activities .f other sirnilaily minded social workers to help rlicnt attain their goal of sociai r.veltetre, therefore, no wages/salai:ies elre payrble to these volttirteels'

¶34Orr the Whether Llte prinimum wages, the learnecl Authority framed an issue that " (i) Mirrirnum Wages Act, ]g4B is applicable only to .industr-v.,, w. P.(c) Nos. 5944, 5059-.68 12012 Page 27 c'f 35 q .establish'rent' ancl 'enterprise', and not to voluntary sociai service otganization of chari tatrle ancl philantliropic natutre'

¶35O. the issure fiamecl above, the leamed Authority has held that the Minimum Wages Act, i94B.is applicable to a scheduled employment in respect of which mi.i'rur. rates of wages have been fixecl by the appropriate Government as is eviclcnl li.o'r a reacli'g of the clefiniiion of 'employer' and 'employee' under secLions 2(e) ancl 2(i) respectively of the Act. The 'Appropriate Government' zts clerl.ecr urrcrer sectio' 2(b) of the Act i' lespect of AIIMS is the cent'al CoverrrurenL. The employtnent of sweeping and cleaning is a schedr-rled eprplolrulerrt gncler Section 2(g) of the aot ancl the Central Government has fixed rrrirrir'u.r r.ates of rverges for the saici ernployment vide Notification No. s'o' 1994

(e) clatecr 7.tt.2008. There is no referehce in the Act to terms like'inclurstry', ,estabiis6're.t, a.'c1 ,enterprise'nor is there any mention even by irnplication that tlic Act alrPlies onlY to them'

¶36On the contrary, while defining the term 'employer' under S.ection 2(e) of' L6e Act. Lhe Act has macle clear that it is applicable to scheduled emplclynlents car.riccl ol"l in a l'ac.tory, schedtrled erlployments under the control of any cjover.rrrrrert i' hiclia, schecluled employ.ients nnder any local authority a^d sclrccluilecl ernploylrlents in any other case' '37. 'l'lrere is l'Io ettrPicl;'ttietrl-has tti enrploynrent rryhich etttploYtlleut. -iB. On [he issr-te No' (ii) Whether deerlerl l<l tre the employer uncler the clirect or indirect menlion in the Act that be caniecl on by%n inclustly' The Act is schecluled irrespective of who carries on the scheduled applieC to arl ihat sbhcdr"rleci AITMS or Sulabh lnternational shor-rld Lre Act having Lesponsibility to pa5r minimum W. P.(C) Nos. 59421, 6059'68 1201'2 Page Z8 of 35 3? i learnecl ALrthoritY [ras helcl' ali tlrat Section 2(") of the Act defined wages, thc 'enrployer' ,,ftny person who employs, wkether clirectly or throwglt mnother person, or whelhe,'on behulf of himself or &ny otker persotlgoneorlnoreemploy'eesinanyschedulederrnploynrcnt ln ,nipurt of wlticn mfimii* rates of wages have been fixed untler !his Act, and -----------'-"'

¶39It is recorclecl in the irnpugned orcler that in the instant case, the so called' voru.[eers rrave treen cleproyed in trre scrred'red ernproyment of sweeping and cleaning b1, SLrlabh International directly. It is also not in dispute that they have bee. cleproyecr by AIIMS trrougrr strlabh Internationar in said sbheclr'rlecl e.rproy'rent. J.rrerefore, both having satisfied the crefinition of 'employeL' are joi.tly ar'cl sever-ally responsible fo'payment o'[rninimr:m wages to the employed cir. cleployecl. In this case, AIIMS as ernpioyel can in no case escape thg respousibility ol ptrytnent of minimtlm wages to the employed as the amount paid by if to tlre Sr-rlabh Irrternational for the pllrpose of payment to the employed is less tlrnrr Lhc rtrilrirl1um |ates of wages fixed by the Government'

¶40orr issue No. (iii) Whether the persons associatecl with sulabh International are ,c'r'r.yees, vrirr1i. the meani'g uncler trre Act, the learned Autho'ity has relieci Ll'o, a case decidecl by Jhar-krra'cl High cor-rrt titred Robert Toppo vs. state of .fharrrlrund, r,vherein it rras been obser-ved trrat "there is no provision in the Act or i. tfte [ir-rles that apy 'sht'alnclan' shonlcl not be treated as labour"" tll. ,l-lie lear.ecl Ar-rthor-ity has observecl that the Sulabh lnternational may be a voluntary orga'ization, but it cloes not necessarily mea-n that the persons deployed in it ar.e alr vorr-r'teers. Trre'very fact that the persons emproyed o' deployed b1' sLrrnbrr I'Lerrratio'al have clairnecl the 'rini'rurn wages under the Act by filing t'eir clair's establishes that they are not volunteet's. Had they been voluirteers, W.P.(C) Nos. 59421, 5059-68l2An Page 29 of35 vs \^/hy woLricr rliey crairn nrinirnnm wages? Trrerefore, the petitionel is treating the employe6l pelsolls as volunteers oniy with a view to clepriving them of minimr'rm wiiges so tl.Iat either or both of them gain out of this system'

¶42o' Lrie issue wr-rether trre juclgrnent'of the I-Iigh courl of patna, as rnentioned above, has * beari'g on the issue raisecl in trre instant claims, the learned Ar-rthority has lielcl as rtnclef" tln examination of the ittclgment dated 9'2'1990 o{ [_lon,ble pa.tna Fligh co,it in c.w.J.C. No. 3408 of 1989 reveals thal the Hon'nle Cotrt in that it'tclgment hel'd Sulabh [nternationcil not to be 'indz,stryt' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Inchtstrial'Dispt'ttas Act, 1947 As it.has already beett cliscrssecl in the foregitng:paragraph that the-application of Mi.ninttrnt lVages Act,"l94{ has nithtng to clo with 'indaLstry' and that tlte act is applicabte io sche&'tlecl employments ttnd'er the act i,.e.specti.ve olwhether it is cart"i,ed on by an industry or not, lhe iuclgruettt appears to hqtt'e. no bearing on this case' The ,nnirnr\on of th; O.P. No. 2 thtit the Hon'ble High Cou't hel'el l.hcrt Stlabh Interncttional rto't being an indttstry, :o indt'tstrial as y,eLl, cts |abottr layvs can be tttacle applicatton to the organ'izcttion i, ,otn:,Uy otLt of place ancl m:isqttotecl. The lfon'ble lIigla Court never iutetl that no lubort luws cortlcl be apptied to Swlsbla {nterns{ionul. f,rtu,ther, it ntctlt be aclclecl that the case examinecl by the ] I-[on,ble High Co,it is that of constrttction of latrines and ,,,li.,rol,t, b1t Sl.ilabh for the use of the pttbl'tc w\ich vvas helcl to be not ,incl,itst,y' ythereas the case tmder this claim application is st,veelting ancl cleaning in tlrc establishment of AIII/IS by sil'ablt in ttie cc't7tctci.t1' cts a contractor ar an ot'ttsotrrced agency' " ' I .ole Lliat t5e lcarlecl Authority under the Minirnum Wages Act has co.sicrer.ecr eacrr ancr every aspect raised by ttre petitioners including the jucigment cratecr 27.1r.2003 of trris court passed in crl. Misc. (vtj netition No' 38212002' 'l"he relevarrt. portion reads as under:- W.P.(C) l\os. 5944, 6059-68i2012 g U The Petition No. 38,21 of 2002 haS been filed as prosectttion complaint against* sulabh,International 'ttncler ,seciion 22 A of the Act whereas th.e instant claint crpplication has beenfiIecl tmder section 22(2) of the Act. notn the cases do not stand in the same footing' The maxit'ttLtr"tt fine tmcler section 22 A is only Rs. 500/- (Rrpees Five Htmdrecl only) whereas the compettsation ,,ri.n, sectiort 20 can go Ltp to ten ttmes of the antomt ,s h ort paicl w ithottt arry' high er limit' T-he cornplaint mcler section 22 A has been filed by an inspectoi zmcler. the: Govt. of NCT yvhereas this application rmcler section 20(2) has been filed by the e'n)plo1,ee hintself. Thbrefore, it is likely that the persons nrio"intncl with the complaint ttnder sectton 22 A were ttoltrnteer.s, bzft the aggrieved person filing the claim case hi.ntself tmcler sectictn 22(2) cottld certainly not be a vol.unteer. tu

iii) I.V) The jtutgntent of the Hon'ble High cotu't has inter-alicL ta.lcen i,n to constdera'tion. a c'irctrla'r bearing No. I29l datecl 3.4.2001 issttecl by the Labottr Department of Govt' of NCT of Dethi to the ffict that Sttlabh International is ietther an industr"y nor cm establishment. But no such cir"cttlar has been isstted by the central government' &t/abh Inter.national, not being an establishme.nt und'er the Slnops ancl Estctblishment Act as decid.ed by vayiovts High Cotn't,s, the minitttaun rates of wages #'! h)' tlte goi"rrrrnnt of NCT of Detlti ttt respect of aII shops and establislmten.ts tmcler the lulinimtun wages Act, 1948 might not be apptica'ble to Sttlabh International. But no ,r,il, stipttl.atioi exists in the jurisdiction of the central sotternment. 'sweeping and Cleaning' itself .is a ichecltttect entploltment in respect bf which mtnimunt rates of wctges have been fixed by the central goverruttent tutcler the Minimtrm lfiages Act, I94B' The F[on.'ble Coatrt ctict noyvhere cdtegorically rttle that the Mininnun Wages Act, 1948 did not apply to Sulabh [nrcrncttiona.l. " v.) t,i) W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-6812012 Page 3L of 35 c

¶44-flre lea'recl Ar-rthority after deaiing with all the issues fiamecl have finally opiuccl as tttrclcr:- ;",,,,,lJ,,ffi'rli'jlrfii',;ir""&;f ,f,,:::*:,:;:"!;';,';:;,:,1 hirn his rtghtfi.rt ctiei. Consiclering the ptight of th9 low paid appli'ct,t.inrptq,ue, enormotts stLffering cal$ed to hint over a ver)v l0,g pn,ioc|. of ttnle ancl ab.ove att the provisions of At[inimtmi. Wctges, ttct, ]g4B,provicling for compe,nsation tp to ten time,t o1-ine antornt short paicl, I'am of the considered opi.nio, thit the en1s of iuStice shall be met if compensation ecl.r.tittalent to f,e timLi of the amozmt short paid to the applicant i.e. inr. 0t765 X 5 : 30BB?5/- (\L?e.es Three lq.klt eight thousancl eight htmclrecl nyenty five only) is aiso paicl to tl,t.e etn.plol)ee o\)et' ancl above the amotmt short paid' Thus cr tottt| ,,n,o,,,t of Rs'3,70590/- (Rt'pess Three lakh seventy thotl.t,suncl.fit e h.tinctrecl ninety oryb) is reqtirecl to be paid to the uP7il ic.ant-emPloYee' As cLlrectcly cl:isct'ssed, both the O'P' Nos' I i'e All Indict Instirtfte of Meclical sciences and" o.P. No. 2 i'e' silablt . Internutioiat being 'ernltloyet"lrncler the Act are several\t cLnd ' joinrtlv responsiblu ,for: pctyntent of minimtm wages to the utrt1tli.c.ant-entltloyee. It is,'fherefore, decidecl in the interest cti e q.u i l1t, .f a ir" n is s anc|, e a s on abl en e s s that the antorLnt r ec1 uir ed to , nu piiiit to the ctpplicant--employee shoz,tld be borne ecltLally by the o.p. No.1 tinct o.P. tvo. 2. Accordingly,.I clirect that an cunotntt of Rs IB52g5/- (Rtpees one lalch eighty five thousan'd h4to l,ttrnch,ecl ni,nty five onty) be paicl by the o.P. No.2 i.e. S'tl.abhlntentationa'ltotheapplicant-employee' I .firrtltey cl.irect that the antotLnt cts avvarded above hcttte tobeclepctsitetlwiththeat'nhoritytfuottghdemanddt"aftsdra'vt'ri .in/ilvot,n"ofthectppl,icant-employ,eepayableatNelvDelhi ,,,iilri,, t0 ctiys ft.om the date of receipt of this order. )'

4.5. Alier hcarilg tlie learnecl counsel for the.petitioner' it is emerged that the issLteclecicleclbytliePatnaHiglrCor.rrlrvastlrat.wlrethertlrepetitionel.ViaSan ipclustrV utrclet'tlie [6clr-rstlial Displttes Act ald the Same isstte again fiamecl by this \o =) W.P.(C) ltlcis. 5944, 6059-6U2ATL ( Court, ns 're'tionecl above. While relying Ltpon tlie jr-rdgment of Patna High Coufi' tlie sar.e view hacl bee' taken by this couit also. However, neither this cor-*t nor: tlie r)atua l-righ conrt, as strongly reliecl upon by the petitionef, has decided the issure on the Mi'irnurm wages Act. The petitioner may not be an 'industry' under tlre lr-rclr-rstrial Disputes Act, Ig47, ancl may be a 'voluntary otganrzation', but the issr_rc irr harrcl is rvhether forthe services rbnclered forthepetitioner, would come in 'urvieu, o['tlie Act a'cl cleployed persons'wor-rld be entitled for minimum wages, it is erititlect to pay the rninirnrurl wages or n'ot'

¶46'l"he petitionel organization has entered into a Memot'andr'rtn of lJ.clersr_a.cli'g, as mentio'ed above, by which the services were rendered to the Alt I'clia lrstit,te ol,Meclical Sciences. The poor people fiom the lower strata of the socie.ty lrave been elgaged for this puipose a1d they were given the wages less tharr Lhe nrinimurrr wages .presclibed under the Minimum wages Act' The or.ga.iza[iori .ray be a vorrntar-y, br-rt a poof i]e'son who has to fill his belly as well cleltcnclent's members ol'the flamily cannot afford to u" a volunteer' A person who rias acclLrirccr the rrri'im'rrn requirement in the life may do some volunta'y service lbr. a clay ol. a two or maximum for a weel< but not on a pennanbnt basis' The r.esporrclerrt hlo. 2 is a person whose survival clepends upon whatever given/paicl by Llie e'rployef or who is taking his services. If he works volnntary even fo' d clay, his r,i,hole lanrily wor-rlcl be sta'ving. The'efore, subh a pelson cannot wot'k vorLrrrLary even r.or a day. one can:rot expect he woulcr be a voh-rnteer for months arrcl years togetller. of the Patna High Cour1, the Union Cout'i, which was disrnissecl as ancl the sanle was also disrnissed' 47 . I atn coitsciot-ts that against the judgment o[ Inclia filec1 tln SLP betbre the Suplerne u,ithclrarvu ttniJ ther.'arlter a review was filed W.P.(C) Nlos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 Y> -l.rrerelbre, no crecisio' has been taken by,the Supreme cor-'t on the merits ancl the nalte; has beeu referrecl to the Larger Bench, which is still pending' 4g. I have no hesitation to say that on one side the petitioner is working fol a .oble caLrsc, orr the other hancl, by way of giving the col0ur of voluntary services, ' it is exploiting the pool people'

4.g. l ar11 conscious tl'rat the view talcen by this court was different from the isstte i' lrancl, tlrer.etbr.e, lhe.re is no question of per incrriam and the violation of 1aw of l.rrececlerrt. 'fliis CloLrrt would have been gdne wfong if the Salne isstte has been cleciclecl by this Courrt anclthe contrary view is talcen in the present case'

¶50'['lre issr,te i1 the instant petitions is not res tntegra as the same has been cleciclecl in Feo|tles {Jnion for Democt'utic R'ights ancl Ors vs [Jmion oj Itrdin,(.su1tr..r),wrrer.ein it rrars been heid that orclinarily no.one wo'ld willingly srr1t1.ll1, 121[roltr or service to another for less than the minimLlm wage' when he' r<uclu,r; trrar ur.cler trre law he is e.titlecr [o get minimtrm wages for the ]abcur or serv,ice ltr0viclecl b), him. In view of that it is helcl that whele a pelson provides latror-rr or service to another 1.or re'runeration which iq less than the minimum wage, tlic labor-rr or service proviclecl by him clearly, falls within the scope and arltrit ol'tlre wot'cls 'lbrcecl labot-tt'' ttnder Alticle 23'

¶51sccLior-r 25 o1' tl're iVliniflrttm wages Act pi'ovides that any contract n.t agrecl'e't1., whereby' a' employee eithe' reli'q'ishes oI red'ces his riglit to a lurirri'rur' r.ate of wages 01. any prirrile-ee o' concession accrr-ring to hirn uriidei' this Act shall be ^Lrll a'cl voicl in so far as itpurporls to recluce the mi'imum'ate of wagcs l'ixt:cl uttrcle r this Act'

¶52Mor-eoirer, section 2(e) of the'Minimurn wages Aot provides that the er'proyer fileans ar.ry person who ernploys whether directly or thror-rgh anoftir:r' W.P.(C) l!os.5944, 6O5g-6Bl2OL2 (D \4 .") \B r)ersorl or whetrrer oLr berralf of rrimserf or any other perqon one or more ernployeds irr a.y scrreclurecl e*rployme't i' respect of which rninim,m rates of wages have been llxecl turcler this Act'

¶53'-l'here"[ore, fincling rro cliscrepancy in the irnpugned otder' I confirm the sar]le. 'Ihe present petitions, being witho't me'its, are dismissed' No order as to costs. cM. No. 12240/2012 (fon stav) Witlrtlreclisposaloftlrepetitionitself,theinstant irrfir-rc[Uours. -l'he san'Ie is clisposed of accolclingly' appiication has become , ^;A/ &v suR$sHt lt<AxT, JI" Oc'i'OBIlR nE, 2A72 ItS/sb W.l).(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68120t2 Page 35 tlf 35

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(cl 6068/2012 & CM.NO. 16391-92/2012, CAV.976/2012 ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. o CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT