All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Govind and Anr

ORDER

18.10.2012 CAV" No. 97312012 Sinbe the learned counsel has put appearance on behalf of the caveator, the caveat stands discharged. CM. Nq. L6378/20L2 (for exemption) Exernption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands Cisposed ot'. )Y.P.(C) tlo. 6OeVzolz In view of the common judgrnent rendered in W.P.(C) No.594412AI2, the instant petition is accordingly disposed of. CM. No. 163Zl20tr2 (for staD With the disposal of the petition itself' the infiuctuous. The safile is clisposed of accordingly. instant application has become

SURESH KAIT, J. OCTOBER X8" 20\2lsl> W.P.(c) No.6aGI/2C12 Pagc' 1 of 1 -t-ItN TX-IIE, X{IGH COI]I{T OF DEI.XII AT NEW Dtr]LX{X Date of Decision; IB.10.2012 w.P.(C) s944/2012 & civl. No. 12240-41/2012. cAV 961/2012 S LJ [,T\I]FI INTERNATIONAL S OCIAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION ..... Petitioner Thlough: Ml. Anurag Dubey, Mt' D'P' Pandey and Mr'. Meenesh DubeY, Advocates Verstts Rr.jciroNAl-LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) & oRs' Thror,rgtr: Ms. Sweety Manchanda, aoratiipondents ResPondentNo' 1' Mr."ViclYa Nand Sharma, R2' Mr. Rajat Ifutyal and Mr' Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. for R3 .AI{D w"x'.(c) 6059/20X2 & cM. I\O. 16373-74/20L2 AI-l-INDIA INSTITUTE OF NIEDICAL SCIENCES ""' Petitioner Through: Nft'. Rajat I(atyal and Mr' Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Vet'stts VIDYA NAND SFIARMA ANDANR . ""' Resporiclents Through: Re.spondent No. 1 in person' Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr' D'P' Pandey and Mr. Ivleenesh DubeY, Advs' forR2' ,dND -r-w.l'.(c.r oooolzolz g ciu. No. 1637s-76/2012. cAV. 97212012 AI.,LINDIAIi.]S.fiTUTEoFMEDICALSCIENCES.'..Petiti<-rrrer. Thr.ouglr:Mr.RajatIfttyalandMr.Sanjeev.Ioshi, Pape 1 of 35 c c W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-6\l20tz Advs. p ..... Respondents Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pancley and Mr. Meenesh DubeY, Advs. forM. AI\.ID r-w.p.(c) 606n/2012 & CM. NO. n6377-78/2012. cAV. 973/20112 AI-I, INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES T'hrough: Mr. Rajat l(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Versus :.... ResPondents Mr. Anttrag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Ml. Meenesh Dr"rbeY, Advs. forM. AND Vet-st-ts MAI]ESI{ AND ANR Through: COVIND AND ANR Thlough: NO. n 637 9 -80 12012, c A.y. 9J_4!2$n2. t-AI,I, INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner: Through: Mr. Rajat l(atyal and Mr' Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Verstts ASI-IOI{ AND ANR Thlor"rgh: ..... ResPondents Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pancley and Mr. Meenesh Dr-rbey, Advs. forR2' Ai\{D ,: w.P.(c) 6053/20X2 & CI\{. NO. 16381-82/2012 ALI, INDIA INSTITU'I'E OIT \4EDICAI, SCIENCES Thror.rgh: Vir. Rajat I(atynl and Mr. Sanieev Joshi, Advs. Vetstts I/IUKESI-I YADAV AND ANR W.P.(C) Nos. 59rlz1, 6059-68/2012 ..... Respondents Page Z of35 t\ Through: w"P.(C) 6064/2012 & cM. NO. 16383-84/2012 A[,[., INDTA INSTITI.]TE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh Dr-rbey, Advs. forR2. AhTD Tlrlor-rgh: Ml. Rajat I(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. -t-AND w.P"(C) 606si2012 & cn/x. No. x638s-86/20t2 ALl. INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner T'hlough: Mr. Itajat I(atyal and NIr. Sanjeev .)oshil Advs. Verst-ts lv'tt r l( Flsl-l Ai\D o1i,1."'*n, Mr. Meenesh L)ubey, Advs. for R2. AND -r-W"ID.(C) 6066/2012 & CM. NO. 163E7-88/20n2' CA\i. 977l20X 2 . A[-,I, INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAI, SCIENCES ..... PEtitiONET' 'l'hrough: Mr. Rajat I(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Aclvs. Vet'st-ts lvlAMTA ^n: AT',ro.tgt',' Mr. Anr-rrag Dubev, Mr.D PrP'ff:iT1i'-''t' Mr. \4eenesh l)ubey, ACvs. forR2. Vet-st-ls DI-IARAMVIR AND ANR Through: ..... ResPondents Ml. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr'. Meenesh Dubey, Advs. forR2. ..... ResPondonts Nzh'. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pand"y u"d \/V. P.(C) Nos. 59.14, 5059-68/2012 \\-/ AhID -r-w.p"(c) 6067/2012 & CM. NO. tr 6389-90/20L2. cAV. 97sl2012 I\I,I. TNDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Thlough: Mr. Rajat I(atyal and lv{r. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Versus IIAI-.AMURGAN & ANR ' ""' Respondents Thror-rgh: Mr. Anulag Dubey, Ml. D.P. Panctey and Mr. Meenesh DubeY, Advs. forR2' .AI{D w.P.(0 606E/20tr2 & cM. NO. 1639X-92/20x2. cAv. 97612011.2 AI,I,, INDIA INSTII.'UTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES .. PEtitiONET Thror.rgh: Mr. Rajat l(atyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Aclvs. Verstts Vl.l;\Y AND ANlL Through: 0h SU[TF],SF[ {(l\XT {.-(Oral) CAV. Nr.r. 96Y20j-2 Sirrce the leamed cr.lunsel cavetil-sLatrcls cl isclralgecl. ..... ResPclndents Mr. Anurag Dubey, N4:'. D-P. Pa-ndey ancl Mr. Meenesh Dr"rbeY, Advs. forR2. CO I{AIVT: T-I O N' tsI,Ti M[[T. ..]IUSlTtrCtrD S{JR.ESET K,{IT . ORDER :[.E.X0.2012 CM. I\oJ 22411l20-12 (fon exernptlon) li>:e'r'tic1r allor.r,ed, sr.rbject to all jr-rst exceptiols. 't'tre application staucls disposed of' has pnt apFearance on behalf of the caveator, the W. P.iC) i\,los. 5944, 6059-6812012 t9 $/.ilr"(C) lYo,s. 59a4/20X2 & 6059-6058/2012 l. Tlre Sr-rlabl-r Intemational Social Service Organization, and the All India Irrstilurte of Meclical Sciences, New Delhi, by way of the present petitions, arc clrallerigirrg rhe sLrstairrability of the order clatecl 25.06.2012 passed by the Regional I_,abor Corrr.rissioper. Since all the petitions have arisen frorn the comtnon orcler, rlrere.tbre, this Court has clecidecl to dispose of all the petitions by this common jnclgrnerrf. The tacts of the writ Petition (civil) No. 594412012 would be cliscLrssecl inter al.ia. being the lead matter' z. ,T5e ltetitioner-Sr-rlabh lnternational Social Service Organization-and r.esponclerrt No. 3, Directol All Inctia Institutes of Meclical Sciences, New Delhi, by way ol'clil't-ererit writ petitions, are challenging the sr-rstainability of the ot'der dated

25.06.2012 passecl by tlie Regional Labor Commissioner. The Regional Laboi C.rrrr,rissi()pcr, lrci6g the Authority ';nder the Minimum V/ages u\ct. al]owecl dre. clairri 'eti[iorr riral has been tilecl by the respondent No.2 under Section 20(2) of lhe Acr. l-5e Ar-rthority also helcl that the petitioner and the t'espondent No.3 both ale severally nncl.iointly responsible for the payrnent of the claim'

¶3Facts oj.this case al'e that the petitionel and respondent No. 3 enterecl into an ag,r.cerrrcrrt ibr cleptoyurent of the respondent No.2 tbr ernployment of cleaning and srveepirrg at the prenrises o1'All Inclia Institute of Medical Science, as such r.espolclept No. 2 rvtrrl<ecl clLrring the period fiop 25.0I.2008 to 31.03.2010' 'l"6erealier, Lhe responclent l.,lo. 2 filed a writ petition betbre ihis CoLu"t for the l)i.lyl'cltL ql' mitritrrltt't'l wages. 'I'he Salrle was disposed of by the older dated

17.02.2010, whereby tl're responclent No. 2 was directed to approach the appr.olrriate [ioru6r. Accorclingly, the responclent No. 2 preferrecl a clairn' W.P.(C) Nlos. 5944, 6059-6812012 applicaliop befor.e tlie Authority under the Minimum Wages Act; same has been allowecl by the inrllugrrecl orcler. tl.. "[he rloot qLrestion for the considelation in these writ petitions is that wlielher tlre allegecl volunteers, deployecl through the petitioner, namely Sutabh Irrterrratiopal Organization, are entitled to get the minimum wages under the Mirt itrtrtrtr Wages Act.

¶5'l'lie petitioner in Writ Pelition No. observecl as uncler: "T'lte Peti.t'io'ner establishm.ent has set ,,p torotories ancl bathrooms, the c'on,;trr,tcti"on being of very simple in natttre for the use of the:.' pttblic, tvhich neecl. not be cleanecl b1t th.e SccNettger nor does it recluh'e 'c'art'-Vi,g oJ'ctrtlt night soil on' antyone's /teacl-Ftn"ther, the jobless sccn)engers ot' other peYSonS renclerecl without employment cil'e not4t beirtg lmpa.rtecl ttoccrtional training in centers t'vhich may help them to /incl-iotti. Iror this pln'pose it has a large ntLntber of volunteers who 'are'paicl snt.crll. sLtnxs of money as pocket money for their poclcet ,*p,t'rru,r. It i.s trtte that in ev€rl case o.f irtdttstry, the element of profit ,,,)rl lnrs neecJ not be there vet as I read the aforesaid decision of the ,SLrpt.eme Co'rrt, the clefinition. cat'tttot be extended to a pt'n"ely t,oltrntat),, orgcutizcttion tike tlte Petittctner estctblishment vvhich N y;ot..l(in'/"or ptblic goocl. ancl. in the irtterest of the'vveaker Section. of l'het ,\ociet),,. " (>. Acloptilg the observation made in the above juclgment, N4r. K.T.S. Tr-rlsi, lear.recl Serrior-Ach,ocate appealing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the i'r'Lrgrrccl or.cler-is iltegal, since there i-.; no relationship of employer and employee' rarhich is a pr-er.eclLrisite for the application of the Minirnum Wages Act. He pointed oLrt 1ha[ tle otrjecL of the establishment is to libelate the scavengers fiotn the sub l*rrnirn occ.uilratiop; ancl is a voluntaly philantlrropic organrzation camying or-rt its acliviLies orr ..no profit ancl no loss basis". Secondly, the petitioner has relied.tlpon Sr-rlabh lnternational has lelied upon the judgrnent deliveled 340BII9B9 by the I-Iigli Courl of Patna, wherein the said Courrt W.P.(C) Nlos. 5944, 6059-6Bl20Lz { n cir.cular clatecl 03.04.2001 issued by Jt. Labor Commissioner, New Delhi wherein the applicatiol of l,abor Laws has been exclucled qua petitioner estabiishment' The saicl circr-tlar is reprodttcecl as ttnder: ,.GOT/T. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERMTORY OF DELHI LABOUR DEPARTMENT ] S-RAJPUR ROAD.. DELHI-] 10054 No. | : 1291 Dated: 03.04.2001 CIRCULAR [-lon1t. Chctinttan, A{/S St'tlabh International Social Service Or{anisation, RZ-83, -Iulahavir Enclave Palam, Dabri Marg, Nevv Oiini-t 10045, has appliecl that tlte provisions of labotLr laws are not o.pplicable on their organization on the basis of the follotving grortnds:- a) That it is Act, 1860. h) Thttt it is c) Thar it i.s a Socie4t registerec{ tmcler the Societies Registrati.on v olun tary ph il anthr o pi c or ganization. carrying ot'tt its activities on "No Profit and No Loss" Dd,s ts. cl) Thal. it tvas cortsiclered as not an 'Ind'nstry" as defined in ,sectictn 2(D o.f the Inchtstrial Dispt,ftes Act, 1947 by the Hon'ble Fligh Cr>ttrt of iufia ancl the Same y)as accepted by the Hon'ble Sttprente ('ottri of-I n.cliu. e) i:h1t the Governmettt of Orissa, I(arnatalca and Andh,ra Pracle,slt con.siclering that it was nei.ther qn "Indt'ntry" nor a' "Comnteycial E,sta.blishment" issrrcd instrttctions to their officers not to en.fbrce the labottr lav,s and keep the above satd judgments irt viel'v, n,hile cl.ealing t'vith the said organization. .n Thirt tltat Governntent of Bi.har also accorded exemption to it' 'fi.r,,, altltlicabili6t of the prottsions of the "Sh.'.bp & Establishtnettt A{.'1", tts appl.i.ccrble in their State. t|liar the exantination of above appl.iccttion, it appears that the above sr.ri.cl orga.nizcttion is a non-profit volttn.tary social organization and is carrl,ing ortl its actittiti.es on. "No Profit and No loss" basis for the ,r,eliari oJ' the httntanity, ancl as strch is neither an industry n.or an E,yi:ttblishtnent. Hence, all the stborclinate ffices in dffirent States hat,e been instrttctecl to lceep the irbove in ttievv, while deal.ing vvith the W. P.(C) trlos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 tI o ctbot,e sclicl organization for the pLu'pose of enforcement of labow' /rir rr,s. I-lon'ble LIigh Cotrt of Patna in the matter of Ms Sulabh International V/,c. State of Bihar & Ors. held vide their judgment clatecl 09.02. I 990 that the Petitioner management/organization, i.e., IVI/s Sulabh International Social Service Organizatton ls not an inclttstry vvl.thin the rnecming of'.Section 2(fl of the Industrial Disputes" ,tlcl. t947. I-Ion'b/.e Sttprnte Coatrt of India vide order datecl t7.02.1994 and 20.03.1996 disntis:;ed civil Appectl and Review Pel,ilion in the ma.tter of "Bhartfta Sr'labh Saarchhlaya Karantchari Scrng vs. Su.lcrbh International & Ors", thereby upholding the sante visl4t s1s clecic{ed by the tlon'bl.e High Court of Patna. 'flte Govt. o/- Orissct, I(arnataka, Andhra Pradesh & Govt. of Bihar i,s,yLrecl ciyc'Lrlars/i.nstrttctions to their st'tbordinate fficers to e{brce tlte: lcrbortr latv,s in ttietv of above saicl jtdgnt"itt. Copies of .the above scticl jtrclgntettts ancl rel'evant circttlars as isstreil by dffirent Stcfte Ci ov t: r' n n t e n ts a r e en clo s e cI .for r e ady r efbr e nc e The AIen'opolitan Magistrate, Delhi. has also dectded on 22.03.1997 thctt the prottisiort,s of Mintnnu'n l][''ages Act are .not applicable to the saicl Or[anizcttio.tt' Copl' o.f the saidjttclgnent is'also enclosed' l-[ertce. i.n ;;'trclt circrtmstances all the Branch Officers' of the Depcrriment v,bile tle.aling tvith the above said Organization. are hai'r,b.t, instrttclecl to lceep the above .fcrcts ancl -itdgrnents in viet'v -for the 1irrtrtp,\e e/' enfctt"centienl of la.botr lclvs ancl.for complictnce of the rtittn,e saicl.ittclgtnenls in letter a.nd spit'it. (V. I{UllAIt) Ji. Labotu" C ommis s iQiler " 7 . 'l'he responclent No.3 Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences is the ;leLrtrorrcr tlre Wr it Petitions No. 6059 12012, 606012012, 606112012, 606212012, 6064i2012, 6A65D012, 6066/2012, 606712012 & 606812012 challerrgirrg the srrn"re on the preposition thal the relationship between the petitioner' hereitr ancl the responclent No. 2 is not estanlished as "employer" and "etnpittl's." AS tl()L cle ii rrecl tfue Minirnurn Wages Act. Thelefole, tlie fespondent No' 3 corrtclcli; i6at tlie application of the provisions of the Minimr"rm Wages Act rn'otrld a rrcl not liable ttnder thc Act to pay the minirnum I'rages .to tlre Page B of 35 W.P.(C)'Nos . 5944, 6059-68/20t2 \1 fesl)orlclerrt l{o. 2. Tlie responclent No. 3 also bor-rght to the notice that the non existence ol'relatioriship as l'employee and employer" between the petitioner and the resporrclept No. 2 would rencler that the irnpr-rgled order is void ab initio' g. The ALrtliority gncler the Act has taken note of the'pleadings and frarned the lbllowirrg issues, uamelY,

(i) whether ttre Minimum wages Act, Ig48 is applicable only to 'inclr-tstrY':. ,establisliurent,. ancl ,enter-prise" and not to voluntary social service organization of charitabIe arrd philanthropic nature'

(ii) Whether AIIMS or Sulabh Intemational should be deerrled to be the errrlrlolrer urrrcler the Act having responsibility to pay minimum wages' '

(iii) wlrether the persons associatecl with Sr-rlabh International are 'employees' rryitliin tlte uteaning ttttder the Act' of employer from liability in certain cases uncler Section Courl's order in CWJC No. 3408 of 1989 has a lrearirrg bn this case-Orr the issues urentioned above, the learned Authority held that the petitioner a.cl Lhe r-csponclent irlo. 3 ale coverecl undel the clefinition of "employei"" as.defined i' sccLiorr 2(e) ot the Act since the responclent No. 2 was deployed or ernployed by t6e reslroncle't No. 3 through the petitionqr. Therefore, the Authority has 'eached to the corrolnsion that ttre petitioner and the lespondent No. 3 are emPlyers for the pLtrl)ose of cletenlining the liability under tl're Minirmrm Wages Act' Moreover'' it also co'siclerecr the fact that the cluty which was per'fornr-ed by the respondent No.2 \vas the sc.hedr-rlecl employmeirt which is clefinecl in section 2(g) of the N{i*imr-rrn

(iv) WlrclhelexetnPtton 23 applies to clairn cases.

(v) Whethel the Hon'ble Patna High W.P.(C) Nf os.5944, 6059-68/2012 O \8' Wages Act arrcl tlie Central Govemment has notif rcation No.S.O . 1994(E) dated 7.08.2008. fixed minirnum rate of wages vide (). As regarcls the cor-rtentions basecl on the judgment of Patna High Court in Wr.ir perition No. 3408llg1g, the Ar-rthority under the Minimum Wages Act has, pclirrtecl o11t tSat the saicl judgment was not applicable in the issue of payment of. Mi.irrrnrrr Vy'ages Act. It was also cliffbrentiated on the aspect of the issues, as iu t5e above saicl juclgrnent the issne was the construction of 'latrines and nrinals' by the PeliLiorrer for [he nse of the public. which was held to be not "iirdustry" rvhereas, tlie issr-re irrvolved in the claim application was sweeping and cleaning in the establislrrnent ol'the tesponclent No:3 by the ietitioner in the capacity as a corrtr-aor.cir o1-. ru1 ourtsourcecl agency. Accolclingly, the Autholity undel the Act allou,ccl the clairl application that has been fited by the respondent No.2. ,'

¶10lr is inrpor.tant to note that tire ALrtliolity has come to a specific conclusion L6^t. tlrc puLrra IIigh Court.juclgrnent is not appiicable in the present case, rvherein the aLlove saicl cir-cr-rlar of labor clepar-trnent is also based on the atlove saicl .iLrclgmept. Importantly, the petitioner also stlongly relies upon the dicturn of w.p.No.340tjl1g8g oi patna Fligh cour1. In this context, it may be reievant to r-eprocluce the lelevant ltalagraphs of the saicl juclgrnent as uncler': "6. concltrcl.ittg, therefore, I have no hesttati.on in holding, fi'rstfit, thcrt, the so-ccrllecl tmion ts enlirely sput'ious. It has no sanctity of lat'v . t,ot-6loes it represent anyone who can be treated to be a v'o'rlcrnan. of lhu Peti.tictn.erl establislmtent. Infact, i't /s a sel'f-styledunion of certain per,eorls whose ntotive is not on.lv larLclable but enttrely mala rtdu. I har:e also rto hesitation in hctiding th.at thts v)as (t case, primarifit, i't't wltich no reference shottlcl have b4en made nterely on the basis oJ'a. ,tplifctt-); ntaierictl tltcrt is the notificcrti.on recognizing the Union. In the lig.l.tf p/ thestLbsecluent notificcfttotl cts contained in Annen'ffe 4, the ttti:horities ,shoulcl. have been \l'sJl 615l1ti.sed to examine, before malcing' o reference, y,hether the [Jnion malring the detttand vvas a union c \,V. P.(C) Ncs. 5944, 6059 -68 /2012 Page 10 oi 35 ,r(u1ctifr.ecl. ltlt lay, and reallt representecl the vvorkmen of the petitionet'-establislunent which situation was sttbsecprently -brotLght iic to light rentlting in the issttance of tlnnextre 4. Even if, I were to ,,,r,r,,i.,r, me that the State government was right in malcing the reference of regi.strcttion a.lone, once it has come to light that the Union t'vhose ilt.et,siclent has ntacle the clemancl, is not a (Jnion created in accorclance u,ilh latrt ancl. it'cloes not consist of the persons who are the worlonett ol' tlte Petitionet" establishtnent, then also" the reference and the ,.:,u,r,rur1r,rntial proceecling cannot be allovved to stand. I have, theyefor.e, no hesitation in cptashtng the -entire reference 'thus rencl:ering tlte conseqtrcntial award a nillity'

¶7J-latting held as ctbove, the second poit'tt whether the petitioner-a.sftrhlishment is an inch'rstry or not become.entirely academic because et)etl i/- it ttas helcl. to be an indttstry, the initiation of the proceecling it;;elf'bei.ng bacl ancl it being not established that the (ryynd ha.s been ,rr,r)il, b1t or ot't behalf of an for a worlcman of the petitioner-e,stcltlishntent, no ctt'r,arcl cotLld be ntacle against the petitionet'- e,sttrblishntent cmcl. the clemancl rytacle in ann.ext're 3 could not be . tlrtertcti.necl. ], hOv,ever, wortlcl lilce to express nty opinion succi'ttctly in t'egarcl io this point also. Unclotibtedly, the law has completelt becn cr"ltstctllizect by the clecision of the stLpreme coltrt reported in AIll 1978 SC 548 (Bangalore lVater Stpply and Setverage Board vs' A llcljappa crnc! others) relating to ty+pes of establishments that conte yvithii't ih'u ,lnfiritictn set orrt in Section 2(J)of the Act. The definition'i'tt Section 2(il o.f the Act of the vvorcl "htdz'tstry" has beett given at'vide mectning intb,r"acing tvitl'Lirt its a.mbit ct I'arge nwnber of organizatiotts ,,hich ti,otrlcl ,o,',ri trtithin the nattu"e o.f tlrc Institt'ttion set out but is e,y,;cnlicrl in every Case vt'here the c1t'testion zs raised vvlzether ctn establi,sltment is an tuch,tstry vtithin the meaning of section 2(i) of the tlct lltat certain relevant facttral clata have to be fottnd' If an ' e;;trrblishment is tutclottbtedty an indtrstry established for the prrpo'te of-busines,s, tracle, l,mcl,ertaking ntanttfa.cttre or calling of employers antl it inc/r,tc|es the calling, set'.;tces, emploltment, hattdicraft' or irtcltt,ytrittl occLtpaliotx or avoccttion of worlutten, that being an't r,:;;trrl,lishtnen.t if trnclotrhtecl has in regard to its character of being att ittcltr,s,trS; then nnrch a.clo is ttot recpfu'ecl.for applyittg thq provisions o-f flte Incl.ustrictl Displttes tlct in all its ctspect. The problem arises only y,hen an estctblisiment by the ttery natrtre of its creation' extent and its p.Ltr.po,se Jbr tvhf.ch it was estctblishecl cannot ex facie be described as i \tr W. P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 cttt Irrd.L.rstty then it can onlt be brought in to the ambit of the definition . of'section 2(J) of tlte Act on the basis of ascertainable facts brought ibotrt btt cletail.ed incpdry in an award proceeding or at the level of the Srcrte Governntent malcing the reference. The oru'n would lie on the so t:allccl yvorlctnen to bring on the recorcl, cogent and relevant materials to shoyt that not only they a,re the members of such establishment but ctlsQ that. the or.ganization is in fact ftmctioning in the manner which bt'irt11s il tttithin the cl.efinition oJ' 'indttstry.'. In the instant case, apart .fi',tn'i lhe b1;e latvs ancl the atLdit report of the nxanagement and fozr' ytitnrlsses examinecl by the worknten, nothing has'been brought on the rec,orc{ to shotrt tl'te manner in v'hich reallt the Petitioner establishntent is' ftmctioning. In fact, the Petttioner establishment claint to lte a. ttoltmtary) organizcttion of social wo'rkers vvho have gcrtlterecl. together to tvorlc on a proiect by which apart from others the -l.ttryizcrl,s c'tttrlcl be relf.evecl f"ont perfonning the inht'tman duties of c,crrr1.,ing' night soil on their heads. The other pt'trposes for th'e esiablislhment of the Petitioner -organization have been set oLLt in the ttirn,y trncl objects ancl appear primarily to'reitder. certain specific berrefits .for the mentber of the pu.blic [n various spheres of everyday li/b. l;'or the,se plr'poses, the Petition.er estcblishment has been set L"p vt,hic,h ir technicall.tt desa'ibecl as "stt/.abh sauchalaya". The /,etiiirtner es'lablishment ltas set ttp l.avatot'i.es ancl bathrooms, the cctrt:;lt't.tct|ctn being of verlt simple in. natw'e for the ttse of the publ'ic tvl,rich r.teed not -be cleanecl by the Scavenger nor cloes it recltire ucr;r11ti1g o.f ctnlt night soil on' a1'tyone's head. Further, the jobless ,\cavengers or other persons renclered withottt employment are no\41 being inrltcrrted voccttional train.ing in. centers vvhich ntay help them to 'fincl .jr;bs. I?ot' this ptu"pose it has "cr lctrge nttmber of volunteers 1'vho ctre paicl sntttll sttti'ts oJ" ntoney os poclcet money for their poclcet cxpc:n,\eS. Il is tnrc thctt in ett€rl case af indt'tstry, the element of pro.fit ont'l loss neecl not be there yet as I rectld the aforesaid decisi'on. of the S'trprente Cotn't, the .defnil.iort connot be extended fo a pu"ely ttotltrntcu-tt organ'izcttiort lilce the Petitioner establishment whiclz rs tt,orlring.for public good and in the interest of the weaker Sectf on of lhe ,ror:iet1t trnless relevantfacts are proved. In my view, it is in.correct to stnt on the bctsis of the aims artcl objects of the organization tha.t lh;tsc t:annr)l be ctccompli.shed by'vol't'mtaty vvorlcers. The aints ctnd oltjgcts oJ' ctttl' esta.bli.shntent are ah'v'ays extensive and goes everL Iri1,,1r,r7 lh.e ctctttttl tt,orlc tltcti the .establishment undertakes. The ipso di.xit of foL.g'tpor'lcnten all of whont claim to be'no longer in serttice of W. P.(C) No.s. lj!)44, 6059-68/2012 lhe el;ta.bl.i,shment and the aim and in/brence tltctt the establisJtment is an tt,os needecl to be pt'ot,ed. B. I hctve, therefore, no hesitation in holcling that there was no sLt/ficient et;iclence on record to holcl that the petitioner-establishment i.r rrrr inchntnt within the tneaning o.f Section 2(J) of the Act and the cl cc i :; i otts d' tlt e StLpreme Cou"t' I I . 'l'lie reaclilg of the foregoing palaglaphs in the said judgment makes it clear tftat tfte issLre was notthe application of the payment of Minimum Wages Act; but the IrrclursLr.ial Disputes Act. Two issr-res were involvecl, primarily the scope of the cleljrritiorr 'l'inclurstrial clispr-rte as clefinecl in Section 2(k) of the Indr-rstrial Disputes Act, arcl L6e Co1rrt rr-rlecl that the clispute which was referred was not an industrial clispLrte sirrce; it was not refengd by the wo'lcmen in the establishment. Secondly, .,r..r t.lre issure whether tlie petitioner herein, namely, Sulabh International is an inclr,rsl,ry ot-l'lot, the Patna High Cotut held th'at, being a purely voluntat'y orgarriz-ati.rr, worlcirrg 1'ol tlie public goocl and for the benefit of weaker Sections in llie sclciety t6e cleFurition of "inclustry" coulcl not extent to the petitioner'

¶12lL is legally I'r-rnclamental to note that the reasoning of the judgrnent florvs Iiorn [he provisions of tlie Indurstrial Disputes Act; not ftorn the Minimum wages Act. signilicantly, the existence of the petitionet'is a voluntary organization is cliflcrent" fi.om as corrrparecl to cleployment of pelsons as volunteers thlough the 'etilio'er. Irr t5e lntter category the petitionel stands in the different fboting as cor.lrr)arecl to rlie lb''er; that is as an ernployer. Therefore, the learnecl Authority u'crer trre vlirii'iurn wages Act opined that the said j'dgment has no bearing in the issLrc inrrolvecl.

¶13()rre of lhe most important aspects for consicleration is that the responclent lrlo.2 r.rras serving the petitionel as a';oltlnleer; not as an employee' Therefore' the Page 1-3 of 35 objects can hardlY iustifY the indtntry. Much more than this o W.P.(C) Nos. 59214, 6059:68/2012 "l/ v c conrcrrtion was that the existence of "employee-elnployer" relationship tg a stne qtto t,t()t,t tbr tlie application of the lVlinirnum Wages Act. The root of this prcllrositior-l \^ias [-rasec[ on the agreement executetl between the petitionel and resporrclerrl irlo.3 as exhibitecl as annexure P-3 in Writ Petition No.-605912012. The Iit.st party irr tlie agreelnent was the respondent No.3 whereas the petitioner was seco'cl pafly. For the proper evaluation of the said aspect, it is convenient to re'roc1-rce the relevant terms ancl conclitions in the said agreetnent as under: "7"he ogreemen.t beh,rteen First Party a.nd Second Party vvitnesseth as p.et' le rm's crttd conditions setforth Ltereunder' t. The Seconcl Party yvill have to provide adequate voluntaty sr>cial yvorlcers for cleaning. The timing of the deployment of the vplunta.rlt socicrl yvorkers wotlld be according to the needs of the Dr-tSlltttRCFI, AII\VIS, rlnsari Nagar. '

¶2No reJuse/garbctge will be. dzunped by the voluntary socia.l vvot'lcers i.rt l.he open trenches, hedge,

¶3Rernoval o/ the cleqd body oJ Dogs/Cats/Rats/Monlceys etc. vrtithin h,rto ho'urs after receiving the complaint vvithoutfail.

¶4Seconcl Partv shall prottide the Hozre Keeping serttices on all r:rrlen4ar cla1,,s Stmtclcrys inclzrcling Gazetted Holidays i.e. the timing of the cleploltntent of the stctfftrtotr.lcl be accorcling to the needs of the Dr. B til I RC l-1, A I I 1,'tS, Ansari Nagar. j. 'l-he Seconcl Pct.rty shall provid.e I0 Nos. of Sulabh voluntcn"v ,soc,ittl u,orlcers a.ncl one xtpervisor to cope vvith worlc load of .yctnitcrti.on throttghottt the periocl o.f agreement. In case, the nt'unber of Sttlrrbh ttol.untctryt social workers engaged, ts found less vvhile ip,spectictn btt an1; Exec'tLtive Ofiicer of the Center, proportion.ate t:hctrg-e,s ypil.l be cleclttc.ted a/ier ,li.scussion vvith Seconcl Pa.rty the as ,,r,. il.,rryges s,pecifiecl in Arutexure-\. The Exenttive Officer oJ'this . (.'ettti.crct sltcrll be Asstt. ACnrn. Offic,er AIINIS (as nominee of Dr. B tiil lic LI, AII MS, tivts ar i Nagcu")'

¶6The Scconcl Party shalt mairztain the complaint btook for r.l.if/i,:rent areas, y,hich riilt b, titctcJe availableto the sutpervisory stcff' W.P.(C) Iros. 5944, 6059-6{t/20I2. ; The Seconit Pory, tttill rtse the manpovver only at the places wherever authorized.

¶7The Second Party shall provide tuvo sets of Apron including Dr' |JRA1RCFI, AIIMS to its voltmtarl; social vvorlcers and ensure that they shall\)ectr it vvhile on d.ttty and maintai.n them clean' ,9. That the vol.tmtar'1t social vvolkers deputed by the Second Party shall not be be.l.ot'v the age of IB years.

¶9The t,oh,tntarSt social vvorkers deptLted by the Second Party shotrlrl not interfere with the cltlies of tvorkers of the First Party.

¶10T'he Seconcl Party shall ensln'e and guarantee the concluct, ltehat,ior. a.ncl h.onest of ihe voltmtar)t social vv'orlcers deputed by them. In' c,a:;e o.f any rttisconcltrct or any other dctmage or theft of the propert)) nf tttn First Parft, the Seconcl Party s-hall be responsible for a.ll ;s'ttch lo,sses or damages ctfter tt is established by holding proper encltri"ryt tha.t tl,te ttoltmtaryt social yvorlcers deptiecl by the Second Par4t n t'e. res pons ibl e.for these. I l. The ttoluntarlt social vvorlcers engaged by the Secon'd ParQ shcrll be oJ' goocl charactet' attd sotntd health. And shotLld be ntetlically ,-fit-ctncl this may be checlced by Senior Residents Dr-BRAIRCFI, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar. t2. In the event o.f any loss to the Dr. BMIRCH, AIIMS on accorntt ct/'neSlligence of ttoltmtat)t social v,orlcers, Second Party shall malce g6ocl-the los.t strstainecl b1t the Dr. BRAIRCFI, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar 'iithr,. b1t fhe replctcernent or on pat)ment of adeqt'tate compenscrtion tvlticl,t ,,,,itl bn cl.eciclecl by the Joint Comruittee of both the parties ctfter h r> I tl i,n g n ec es s a.r')t encluiry.

¶13The F'ir,yt Parry slcall not be responstble for the paytnent of honorar.ilnt to the ttolrmtorlt sesictl vvorlcers engaged by the Second Pttrl.lt ctncl ,shul.i ensure timely payment to them' t4. The Secontl ParfTt shatl provide volttntary social workers L7s per approvecl terms and conclitions. T'he same shall be monitored by Sr' ,icinitati,on Officer/Rept'esentcttive of the Dr-BRAIRCH, AIIMS, Ansari Ncrgar ancl if the strength is fotmd less, proportiohate recovery will be tncLtle. W.P.(C) Nos. 1i944, 6059-68/2012 Page 15 of35 o

¶15The Seconcl Party tvill have,to proch,tce the monthly bill alon'g vtith the certificate of satisfac.tory performctncefrom the Sr. Sanitatiott

0./fir:er"/Sctnitation In,spector to ih"- sub*ittecl on the B'h of every cirlenclcrr tnonth for verificatiott by the Executive Officer and scune shctll lte pcLicl tvi.thin I0 dalts by the First .Party.

¶16Seconcl Parqt shall not appoint' any Sttb-contractor/Agent to carry) otrt any obligations tmcler the a.yvarded pertod of worlc. t7. Tlte lrir"st Par'ry'- sha.ll provicle the qttality'cleaning material to llte ,secortcl Par'6t aS,per reqtiretnent ctt its cost, but the Second Partv shcrll ntcrlce this clemand i.n advance so thatvvorlc does not t'tf/b',' 1r9. The Steconcl Party Dr. BRAIRCFI, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar shall nctt be responsible for cmy compensation which may be reqtired to be pttid to the vol.tnntar)t social yvorhers of the Second Party conseclLLent r tpo t't aqt inj tult/nti s haP. t9. 'l"he ,seconcl Pcu"0t shalt be responsible to the tlead of the Dr' titl,,ill?CFI, AIIIVIS, An.sari Nagar or any of;ce at'rthorized by him/her .fitr exeqttion oJ-cla1t to cla.ywork of the cqnxplts' Tlte set'Lu,iht instratctionsiorclers issttecl bi, tlxs Dr. BRAIRCH, tlIIMS, tlnsari Nagar .from ti.rue to time shall ctlso be.follotved b1, the Secottcl P cr r | -v ct n cl v r.tl t t nt ary s o c ictl' t'v or" lcer s l0 'l'ltc [)'ir,st Pcu'ltt reserves the rights to awarcl the area Jbr c,leurti,g, clusting etc. oat of vcriotts bttildings/loccttions a.nd can any tirne r.vil.hc/rcryv some areds or ctdcl Some additional areas from the conlract trtilhottt assign.ing cuxy rectsol't after giving one month"s nolic'c. 2 l. The contract can lte terttti.natecl by the First Party Dr' IllitllRCI't, ,/lilA4s, Ansari Nagcu" by giving one ntonth's notice' The ,Sci'o:tr.l I'>tr|tt cdn also tertninale the cttntract by giving one month's nol ice'. 2). No toltmtary social workers of the Second Parry shall stttlt.i,it lhe ctrmpu's beltoncl pre'su'i'beil ch'r4' hotLrs' Wh'ile goittg ofi of .the-Dr' 13ftlftlcFI, AIINIS,'Ansari Nagar , Secctncl Party will go thro'ugh the cltet:lc b1t secttrifi; at ttariotts ex.is'ts of the Dr. BRAIRCH, AIINIS, ,4nsrtri'Nagar W.P.(C) l\os. 5944, 6059-68 /2012

¶23It is.lirrtlter agreecl that there t'voulcl be absoltftely no scope e,scctlrrtion poyable by the First Parlt on ctccount of increase honorttrirrm of voltmtary social vvorlcers tLnless mt'tttmlly agreed to.

¶24[t is agreecl. that in case the Siecond Partyfails to perform any of tlte telns cmcl conclitions of this agrdement or commits arry breach in conlroct, the Fir.st Pcu"qt may cancel the contract after giving t'ertsonable opporhtnity and. iffortnd tmsatisfactory then by giving one mctnlh notice in t'w"iting to the Second Party.

¶25ihat the Seconcl Party shalt isstrc the identity card to each of the t,c>ltmtar1., ussial worker engaged as associate member for entty into the tvot"lc place of +IIIMS premises'

¶26That i.1 case of any disprtte betvveen the parties aforesaid in. i.espect of this agreetlxent, the matter shall be referred to a mutt'nlly ctgi.e,ecl .Ltpotl Arbitrator by tle First Party and LIony., Asstt. Director o/'tl,e Seconcl Party ancl the decision of the tlrbitrator so appointed ,thctll be.final crnd binding on both the parties'

¶27The rates term.s and conditions as per annexLtre I, II & III to this lgreement wf.ll .form an integral pcLrt of this agreement. " .14. l.clisptrtably, [he above said contract establishes the fact that the lespondent lrlo.2 u,as cleployecl in the prernises of respondgnt No. 3 for the employment of clea'irrg tlrr-oLrgh the petitioner. It is trr-re that the contract entered between the parLics r.el'crs tl-re responclent No. 2 as "voluntary social wot'kel". Despite of this rel-ere.ce .ns a volurntary social wolker, the respondent No. 2 has filed claim petitiol lrrcler tlie Minimum Wages Act; ancl therefore, the Authority undel the Act, fielcl thlt tfie respoudent No.2 is not a volunteer.

¶15lVlor-eover, it is legally significant to note andexamine the natttre eLnd scope of thc above contract in tlie light of obsen'a[ions made by the Suprerne CoLrrt in Feoples {Jtpiort.for Denrocratic R.ights and ors vs- {Jnion of India.1982 (3)'SCA

¶235'l'lie relevaut paragraph is reproduced as ttnder nf vJ in O W.P.(C) Nlos. 5944, 6059-613/2012 Page !7 of 35 O

¶20Now the next tlwestion , that arises for consideratian ss vphether tlaere is any breuElr of 'Article 23 when a person provirles labour or service to the'Stste or to any otker percoxl snd is paid less than the wtinirnwnx wage for it. It is obviot'rc that' orclincrrily no one wotild willingly supply labottr or service to a.nother. .for less than the mininttml wage, when he lanotvs that r.tncler the laut lte.is entitled to get rninimum wage for the labow' ,r," ssntice prr,nticled btt hint. It ntay therefore be legitimately ptvs'rrnrecl that when cL person provides labour or service to 'another against receipt of rerttLrrteration which is less .than the nlinitnttnt 1t)(tge, he is acting ttnder the force of some compulsion tlhi.ch ch'i.ttes hint. to tvorJc thotryh he is pctid less than vvhat he is entitlecl uncler law to receive. what Article 23 prohibits is forced lalto'rtr' thal is labo'tn' or service which a'person is forced to pt'otticle ancl. force' tvhich yr;oztl.cl rnahe such labour or service ,fbrcecl labotLr' may ari,se in settet"al ways. It may be physiccLl .fttrce tvhich. t11.cty cotllpel a. person to provi'cle labour or Se'rt"ice to anotlrcr' or it ntay be force exe|'ted through a legal provision suclt ct,.; Ct. provi.,sionfor imprisonntent or fine in case the employee fails to protticle lctbotn" or Service or it rnay even be complLlsion arising. .f i,n hrnger ancl pot;ertl;, t'r;cLrtt anti' clestitr'tti'on' Any factor whici't cleTtt'ives ct pet'son of tr clioice of alternatives and compe/'s hint' to ,,itopt r>ne pcr.r'licttlctr co'Ll:'se oJ crction mcry properly be regard'ed u.s 'forc'e'incl iJ'laboltr or service is compclled as aresttlt of sucli ,/bice', i,t trtoL.rld we forccd la.botn"'. Where a person is sctffering . .'fi.oin htmgei' or Starttation, tt,hett he has no resol.'trces cft all to /ight clisease or feed his v,rfe and children or euen to hide their iikurint,ss, u,here zttter grinding poverfr-has brolcen his bach and reclticetl hint to d stale of helltlessness and despair and'where n'o rttl,rer e.ln.plo)n11eni /s a.vai.lctbl.e. to alle.viate the rigor of his

1.tottert1t, he y,cttlcl lnve ?i.o 'cl'taice b'tft to ctccept any work that. .'Con,te,S hint t'rtrt-y, et,en If lhe retn;'tneration offered to hint'is less tl.trtn the rninirtl-tut't vi)ctge. ife tvotid be in no position to barga'in vt,ith the entpl.ol,er; he tvottltl ha:,e to accept what is offerecl to hint. tlnd in c.lt>irtg so he'v,oi,tld be acting not as afree agent t'vith ct cho.i.ce lrent,ein crlternatives but mdei" the compulsion of ecortontiC cit"c'ttt'11s|tffice,s attd lhe labotrr ot" Service provided by Iririt. tt;oi.icl lte clearly 'J-orcecl labotn^.' Tltere is no rea'son t'uhy 1116 tt,orcl fitrced.' sho'ulcJ be reac! in a ncn'rou, Llnd restrtcted nianner .scr L?.r to lte confirzecl onllt to physiccit or legal force'pa.rticdarly W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 60s9-68/2012 ,) y)hen th.e national charter, its fttndamental document hcts ltr.onr.isecl to btild a neyv socialist republic where there Will. be socio-economic jrtstice for all and every one shall have the right to ytorlc, to ecltLcation and to adeqttate means of ltvelihood. The Constittttion rnalcers hcwe given L$ one of the most renxarlcable tlocttrrtent,s in history for trsher"ing in a new Socio-economic orcJer ctncl the Consti.ttttiort tvhich they have forged for us has a social pr.rpose ctncl an economic rnission and therefore evely word or phrase in the Constittfiion mtrst be interpreted tn a manner vvhiclt tpolr.lcl. achtance the socio-econontf.c objective of the Constittttion. It is t,tot ?;tl,t often that in capitclist Society economic circumstan'ce exet,t ntrtch greater pressLtre on an i.ndivich'nl in drtvtng him to a' pcrrtictiltt, iru",t, of action than phltsical compttlsion or force of legi,slalitte provision. The yvord force' . nxust therefore be c:onstrtrctecl to inclttcle not only phltsical or legal force but also .fbrce cn'is'ing fr"om the compt'tlsi'on of economic circutnstance tt,hich lsc:r1t€s no choice of alternatives to a person in want an'd conlpels him to provicle labot'tr or service even though the ren,rtnterat'ion receivecl for it is less than the minimttm wage of co.ut.,re, i/'ct person provides labou' "or Seruice tO another against rec:ei.1tt,r1'tt " ntini.mrrntwage, ityvottld not be possible to say that tJ'te Iabotn' or service provicled by hitn is forced labour' because he gets yrtltat he is entitled rtncler lavv to receive. No ittference cctn reasonabl.y be clratwt 1n sttch a case that he is forced' to provide lrrbo.trr or se'rvice for the simple redson that he would be ltrovi,c{ing l.obotu" or service against receipt of what is la.tuft'lly 'pq)a.ble to him .iust lilce any other person who is not und.er tlrc force o/' tinTt contpttlsion. We sre therefore of the view tha.t n,here fi persnrl provides labour or service to another for r(tntunerfition which is less than the minimum w&ge' the Isbor'u' or. serr)ice prottitled by him clearly, .falls witkin the scope urtc[ urnbit of the iuortls forced labour under Article 23. Such a person .l'n,oul.cl be entitl.ecl to come to the cotirt for enforcetnent of 'his fi.rnclantental right tLnder Article 23 hy asking the court to ilirect pa1;rnent of the m.inimtun wage to him so that the labow' or serttice prottitlecl. by hi.m. ceases io be forced labow"' a'nc{ the ltreach of tlrticle 23 is ren\edi.ecl. It is therrforu cl,ear that t'vhert the petiliotlers allegec{ that ntininl.Ltm wage was not pa'id to the ,u,o,jlr,rru,, empl.oyecl by the contractors, the complaint was realh; W.P.(C) l\los. 5944, 6059-68/2012 In effect ancl strbstance a complaint agai.nst violation of the ,flmclantental. right of the worlcrnen t'Lnder Article 23 ' 1/10. the 2 5. C o ntr-actirtg ottt'-befot'e or cL,fter tlte W.P.(C) Nos. 5944', 6O5lt-6Bi7Ot2 Arlicle 23 oF the Constitution enacts a very important fundamental r'iglrt in Ibllorvirrg terurs: Artic.l' 23 ; Prohibition of n"ffic in httman beings anclforcecl laboir-

(l) f,qffic iyt hzmtcm beings and begar and other similarfornts offorcecl lcrlxtrrr ar.e prohibitect ancl any contrantention of this provision shall be an' o/ibnce ptnti,shabl'e in accorclance with latt'' e) Nothittg in tltis Article 'shall prevent the State f"orn itttposing cpmpu.l,yor.1,-'sert,ice for pttblic pLt.rposes, and tn imposing strch service the Slaie ,shall not ltake'any cliscrimination on groLtnds only of religion''race' casl'e or cla'ss or aTlY of thent' lj. ,T'he challepge herein is not abor-rtthe. enforceability of the said contract: br-it t5e nalur-e arrd scope of the san-re is to be examined in the light of Artic]e 23 of the Corrstitr,rti6p" with the flrnclings as regarcls therlilferent fonns of f'rrced labor-tr as lrelcl i n Peoples {Jnion for Democratic ltrights snd Ors vs. {Jnion of nndia 1' st'Lprc|) lbr curlli'g.st the stancl of the lesponclentNo.3 anclthe petitioner-In the light of llre a5ove, tlie cleployrnent of respondent No. as a social wbrker is a new rnethod of fbr.c*cl l'l-r.rrr-i1 Llre society, which neecls to be curbed. The reading of the terrns arrcl corrclitions ol'the saicl contract in terms with Arti cle 23 would establish the lact that, the ;esltoncient No. 2 was working a:l an "emplOyee" not as a "volunteer" I B. lt is alsr pertirrent to examine the saicl contnact with the provisions oi'the Mirrinttutl Wages Act.

¶19Secl-ion 25 of the MinirllLll'l'I Wages Act reads as follows; Any contrcrct or agreement, whether ntade comtn.encement of this Act, whereby an' Page lC of 35 2r\ enl.pl.oyee .either relinqtishes or redtLces L.tis right to a minitnlttll. ra.te o/'tictges or any privilege or concession accruing to him trttcler tlti,s Act shall be ru,tll cmd void in so far as it purports to techrce tl'te ntinimtun rate"of v)ages fixed under this Act. Z0;. 'l'lier.elbre, the contlact entelecl between the petitioner and'the respondent No. 3, woLrlcl not clisentitle the claim of ihe responclontNo.2 as an employee for' n'ln'lnrun"l \^/ages lttlcler the Minimntl Wages Act. Zj. Tlris Cogrt in jLrclgrnent clelivered on 24.02.2010 in Writ Petition No. 378512007 lrelcl as tttrcler: ; " 16 The object ancl poli.cy of the LegislattLre in enacting the At[inimum Wages Act is to prevent exploitation of the worlcers crncl., .for thci. ptrpose, it aims at fixation of minimt'tnt ,VCtgeS tt,hich the employer mrtst pay. The'Legislature undoubtedly 'intencleil to cpply the Act to those inclrtstries or localities inwhic]t b1) r'ea.Sot1. oi ,r,rttut strch as tmorganized labovr or absettce of tncrchiner)) for regttlation of wages, the wages paid to worlcers \4)et,e, in the tight of the general level of wages, and subsistence level., inad.eqmte. Conclitions of labor vary in dffirent indt'tstries ancl /ront. I,ocality to locali1t, cmd the expediency of fixing mini.mttm y)ages, and threats tltereof depends largely LLpon clit;erse fcrctors yvhich in their very nattre are variable and can 1rropuy$, be ascertafuecl by the Government which is in.charge of tl,te aclministration of the State. It is to caruy ot'tt ffictivelt the p?,g.pose of thk enctctntent that potver has been given'to the altpropricite Gotternm.et,tt to d.ectde, vvtth reference to local. clonclirions, ytthether it is d.esirable that minimutn wages shoul.d be 'fixeclinregcu"dtoanlls'1'"c|:tlledtradeorindush"y,inany !6cctlit.1,, ,,rit. t7 n be cleentecl exped.ient to do so, the ratas at vvldclt lhe tycrges 5hollcl be fixed in respect of that indt'Lstry i'tt the locct.li6"'

¶22Irr ot-c1er-to protect the interest of the empioyees, th.e scope uncier the Mirritrrttrl Minimtrn'r Wages Act is in r.vicler perspective than the Industlial Disputes Act. The Wages A.ct "Section 2 defines as follows; j W.P.(C) Nos. 59214, 6059-68/20L2 \-o

(e) "entploTtel,tt nxeans any person yvho employs t'vhether direCtly oi. th,.r^gh snother person ot' vvhether on behalf of himself or ctn)l othir person one'or more entployees in. any schedzled snl.pleltp'tent in respect of which minimttnt rqtes of t'vages hcrue been fixecl rmcler this Act and inclttdes except in sub-Section (3) of Section 26

(i) in a factory where there is carried on any sche&,iled emplolnlent in respect of which minimttm rates of_.tvages have been fixecl tmder this tlct any person named under . clcru.se (fl of sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act.l94B (63 oflga& as n'tLTnager of thefactory;

(ii)inatT)SclxecllLleclemplolltllentlmclertheconirolofany gol)ernrrtent in Inclia in respect of which minimt'Lm rates of iu,r,gut have been fixed Lttxcler this Act the person or attthori4t appointecl by. st'Lch' govern'ment fo' the st4tentision and control of employees-or .vvhere no per'sot't ot" cnrthoritlt is so appointecl the head of the clepartrnent;

(iii) in ctyt)) scheclttled empl.oyment tmder any local attthori.ty in respeci of v,hich ntininu,iln rates of wage,s hat,e been fixed tmtfey. this rlct the persons appointed b1, strch azrtliori6t fo, the sttpervision and control. of ent.ploltees or y,het'e no person is so appoinied the chief exet'rrtive fficer of the Iacal crulhority,' (it,) irt ctnt other'cctse vvhere theTe ls ccu"ried on a.11r) 3chech.tled entploytnent in respect of which m'inimtLnt rcftes o.f' v,ages -have been fixec| atnder thi's Act any person t,esponsible to the owner for th.e sztpervision ancl control o./' the entployees or fot' t'he pavntent of t'vages,' S/hereas Lhe lrrcittstrial Disputes Acts, Section 2(g) defines employer: (' g) " lintPlol''s' " n1'edns -- 'ii) i.,, ,'ul"tio,, to cttt inclutstt"tt carried on b1' pr ttnder the cnfth'orily' 'cyf anlt clepctrtntent oJ'3't'[the Central. Government or a StcLte Got,ernntent.f , rhe authorittt lt,'escribed in this behalf, or vvhere rto crLrLhorih; i.r pre,scribecl, the heatl of the department'' -la..\ W. P.(C) lrlo:. 59i14, 6059"68/2012

(ii) in relation to an indttstt"y ccu'riecl on' b1t or on behalf of a local ai.rthority, tlte chieJ'exect'ttive fficer of that aatthority''

¶24It is inportant to note that the definition of ernployer inthe Minimr,rrn Wages Act prescribes that "any person who employees" falls under the category of eur'loyer rv6ereil the clefinition of the employer in the Industrial Disputes Act is solely basecl o1 the clefinition of industry. Therefole, both the petitioner and the respbrrclent lrlo.3 qr-ralifies the test to be called as employer as per the provisions of Mini'iu.r Wages Act. In the light of the above discr.rssions, the relationship of the petitio'er arncl respondent No.3 with respondent No. 2 is established as employer a'cl er''loyee. Responclent No.2 is entitled to get the minimum wages as pel the sche're ol-the Constitution of Inclia as well as the object of the Minimum Wages, Act, 1948. Accorclingly, intelference under Articles 226 and 2?1 of the ConslitlrLion of Inclia is not warranted 2_5. Mr.'"I'Lrlsi, leamecl Senior Advocate has further submitted that since thele is rro r.elaliorrsSill cl eniployer and employee and the-petitioner being the volr'tnLary or.grlrrizalion, there1bre, Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot lre appliecl on sttch organization.

¶26I..le 6as reliecl Lrpotl a case of Rattiram and Others Vs. State af Madhyu Frrtrlesh, (2012) 4 SCC 5/6, wherein while lelying Llpon the case of Uniow of Inrlin N/s"Rughuhir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754,the Snpreme Courl has lieldtliat a pro.oLrrrcerlepL ot'law by a Division Bench ol a smaller nnmber of Jr-rdges, and in orclcr. tlat sr-rch clecision woLrlcl be binding. It has been held as under:-

(1989) 2 SCC 7s4, S. Pathalc, CJ, h.as , "26. [n Union of Inclia. v. Raglntbir S'ingh, tlte Con,sti.tt'ttion Bench, spealcing through R' helcl thtrs-'- (SCC P. 778, Para 2B) W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-681201-2 Page 23 of35 91-' "28. We are of opinign thcft a pronoLtncement of law.by a Division Bench of this Cottrt is binding on a Division Bench of the sanxe or ct smaller ntt,nber of J'tdges, and itt orcler that strch clecision be bincling, it is not necessary that it shottld be a decision rendered by the Full cow"t or a Constitt'ttion Bench of the CoLLrt. " .28. In ChanclraPralcashv. StareoJU.P, (2002) I0SCC7I0; 2003 ,SCC (L&S) B0S , (1 sarbseqttent Constitt'ttion Bench rei,teratecl the view that hacl already been stated in Raghubir Singh (sttPra)'

¶29Tltu,s yieyvecl, Bhooraji (stpra) was a binding precedent, rnt.cl ythen in ignorance qf it sttbsecptent decisions hcLve been . rencl.erecl, the concept of per inctriam. wottld come into play. " I-le lras firrther i'eliecl tlpon the jr-rclgment of Sundarias X{unyal'al Ehatiia & Ors" Vs. Collector, Thane lV{aharashirs & Ors., (1959) 3 SCC 396, wherein the Sutrre.ure Ccurl has obsen'ed as follows:- " 14. The other litnb of the ctrgument of counsel for the appel.lctrrts relates to the rt'tallt'ter in whtch the High C'ou.t't clislto,secl of the ntatter. It 14)as saicl that a decisiott oJ'this Cout't has lteen cl.isregarclecl and a bincling decision of a co-ordina'te Bench oJ'the sanxe CotLrt has been ignored' ,T,TX Jf)rx xxx l,g. It v,otrlcl be cl.ffictilt.for t,r.c to appreciate the jtdgm'ent of the I-li.gtt Coztrt. .One nntsl rententber that pr'trstit of the latv, 1rrr1p7tt€t. glaltorou,s it i,s, hcis i.t,s o,/t,n linxitcttion on the Ben.ch. .[tt a nptlti-.jilclge cotu"t, the jtriget are batutd by preced.ents cud procecltrre.. Thelt cottlcl'ttse thetr discretictn only t'vhen therc is n.o clec|crred. prin.ciple to be formd, no rztle cmd no at'tthot"ity' The .ltrclicial. clecortmt crntl. legal proprieir-deman.d fhat whei'e ct lear.nec{ singte Jttdge or a Division Bettch does not agree with the tler:i,gion of a Bench of co-orclinate jurisdiction, the matter

¶27W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-6812012 ")\ shall be referrecl to a larger fiench. It is a stLbversion ofjudicial process not to follovv this procechtre' " ' 2I\.' "nie lear-necl senior counsel has flirther refenecl the order.dated 27.11.2003 passecl by this cor-rr1 in crl. Miscellaneor-rs (Main) Nos. 3822,2933 to 2936,3820-3B2l ol-2002lilecl by the M/s Sulabh International and Another against the order ol, l.aboLrr Euforcernent Officer (C), Delhi 3, wherein this Court has also relied Ltllorl tlie j urclgment o.f the Patna I{igh Conrt ancl held that there is no reiationship of 'rasler arrcl servant between ttie petitioner and the persons being the volr-rritary services.

¶29'l'he albresaicl orcler was challenged rvay ol'an SI.P (CLl.) N.o. 1 69312006 dated has passecl tlre following orcler':- ,., 'fhe cptestion as to yvhether a pttblic ttttlity service, whiclt Ls, crllegeclltt cctrriecl on by a Sociefy on 'no profit no loss basis', .u,o,lribu an indrrstr"y tvithin. the meaning of the provisions of tlte Inchntrial. clisptrtes Act, 1947, being pending decision before a set)en Jtrclge Bench in State qf U.P' vs Jai Bir Singh, (JT 2005

(5) SC 170i,,1,v€ ar€ of the optnion that the matter should be referrecl to a larger bench' TI,te pctr.ties are ghten liber$; to mention the matter before I.lon'ble ttie Chief Jttstice or Fi,le qn appropriate appl'icati'onfor ragging this case' vvith Jai Bir Singh (supra)' Let the recorcls be placed before Hon'ble tlrc Chief htsti'ceoilnclict.forpassingappropriateorders.

¶30'l'tre Coorclinate Bench of this Couft on 16.11.2009 in Crl. M'C' No' 3Bti4/2009 passecl the older as follows:- by the Government of NCT of Delhi by

23.02.2007, wherein the Supreme Cor-rr1 " A/h'.Ttrlsi, learnecl Seniot' Adpocate the petitioner is tn the worlc of appearing for the a voluntary social constructing and petitioner st'tbntits that organizcttiort ettgagecl W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68/2012 ]1 .\ tllctintuinirtg lavatories and has been. carrying on its activity on' no profit nirt no loss basis for the welfat"e of the httmanity. IuIr. Ttrlsi, ho,, cl,'n u,n attentiorz of this corrt to the Circular No. I29l . cltttecl 3.4.2001 issttecl by the GNCT, whereby the La'bo'm' DepartmertthasnotifiedalltheBranchOfrtcg::of'!n Detrtartrttent that provisions oJ' laboty lavv vvooild not be appli.ccttion to the petitioners. Mr. hlsi also draws attentiort of the cotu,t to the orcler clated 27.11.2003 passed by this cot'Lrt in , crt. IuI'is. (M) y'/os. 3822/2002, 2933/2002, 2934/2002' .?g35,/2002, zgs6/2002, 3820/2002 and 382I/2002 and the ' orcler of the Division Bertch of Patna Lligh Court tn W'P'(C) no' 3408/Bb. Bctsed on the saicl strbnti.ssions, Mr. Tttlsi submits that prottls,i.ctns of Sections 23 ancl 24 of the Contract Labour (R & A) Act cainot be involcecl. bt, the trtal. coz'rt against the Pet'itiorter In Ctrl. M.A. No. 1358212009, the Trial courl proceedings were stayecl till the next date o['hearing. ,l I . (-),.., r5e sarre issr-re whether the petitiouer is zur industry within the rneaning ei['sectir>r12A) of the lncir.rstrial Disputes Ac!, 194] and whether the Inclustrial as rvell as l.,a6ourr l-,aws a'e applicable to the o'ganizatibn, on 07.03 '2017, this courl irr Cr-1. lVI.Cl. No.3B84/200t) passedthe follorving order:- " Sl,tort questiorr for clelenttinettion in this petitiott i's' tvhelher or not tl'te. petiti1ner Strlabh International is arl -inclustrst' tttithin the meaning o.f section 2(l) of the In&'ntrial Dispt1is Act ancl whether the inclttstrial as vvell as labour lavvs a,t'e atrtplicable to the organization' I hat,e been inforntecl that aforesaid legcil issue ir , pentlirtg consiclet'alion of ct Lat'ger Bench of Sttpreme Cow"t and "the /i,iciing o.f tlte Szryrente Cottrt will obviot'nly iyzn,lt th1 cle,.li'.cicln i,, this petitiort. Tlnts, decision on fhe petilion is clefbn"ecl. The petitiol is, accorcli.ngl),, cortsigned sine di'e with theobsenltl,tianthctteitherofthepartie,gmeygetitrevivedafter the clecision of the Sttpreme Court on the issue' " W.P.(C) Nrrs. 5944, 6059-6Bl2Ot2 Page 26 o1'35 3{

¶32Mr. MLrkul Gupta, lear.ned Senior Aclvocate, who alguecl the petitions filed by r5e All Irrclia Institr,rte of Meclical Sciences has joined hands with Mr'. Tr-rlsi," lea'iecl Seuior-Achzocate on the legal issue and has further addecl that the r-esltopcleptl; have leither challengecl the a.gleement nor the Memolandum of I1'clerstan<iirrg enterecl into between the Sulabh International and the All India IrrstitLrto ol'Meclical Sciences. There is no evidence on.record that the respondent was enr'loyeil by either of the organizations mentioned above and the irnpr-igned clecisio. is i,vithout applicatio'of rni'cl a'cl without any basis. Therefore, the same has to be set asicle.

¶33IJelilre the leamecl Ar,rthority uncler the Minirnum Wages Act, 1948 and Regiorrarl l-abour cornmissioner (ce'trar), New Derhi ancl before this cor'ut ihe sarl.le issne was raised tliat the petitioner is not an inclustry and the pr:oviiions of N4irririrurrrr wages Acl, 1g4g, are not applicable to them as it is a voluntary.social service orga'ization of charitable ancl philanthropic natuLe, working on no profit arrcl rro loss basis. Therefole, it is neither an establishment nor an employer. It is lirrtlrer sLrbmittecl that the persons associated with Sulabh International at'e ngt eurl"rloyees or rvorlcefs, br-rt a.re associate members of Sulabh International, rerrclcr.i.g tlieir 'olur.rtary social services for the upliftment of scavengers. The object ol'the associate members of Sulabh lnternational is to render social service eurcl not to attaip per-sonal benefits, and also becanse they are not rendering any ser.r,ices [r>r-the organrzation but are using the organtzationto coordinate ancl guide their acLivities alolg r.vith the activities crf othel simiiarly mindecl social workers to help tlicnr attait'r their goal of sociarl lveltan'e, therefore, no wages/salar:ies eIIe paynble to these volui'tteers'

¶34on [6e r'ininun wages, the learned Authority framed an issue tlrat " (i) wlretlrer Llie Mi'irnr-'r wages Act, 1g4B is applicable only to 'indutstt'y" w.P.(c) Nos. 5944, 5059-68 12012 Page 27 cf 35 C "estal"rlishmeirt' ancl 'enterprise', ancl not to voluntary social service organizrtion of charitaLrIc ancl phiIaLrthropic uatltre.

¶35O' tlre issue jramecl above, the leamed Authority has. held that the Minimr-rrl Wages Acr, lg4} is applicable to a schbduled employment in respect of which .rinir'uur rates ol'wages have been fixecl by the applopriate Government as is eviclcrrr ll-tirrr a reaclirrg of the clefinition of 'ernployer' and 'employee' under secLio's 2(e ) arrcl 2(i) respectively of the Act. The 'Appropliate Governrlent', ars clelirrecl urrcler. secrion 2(b) of the Act in respect of AIIMS is the cent'al Covernurent. The employtnent of sWeeping and cleaning is a schecluled enrplo)rurent r-rncler Section 2(g) of thE aot and the Central Governtnent has fixed ' rrrirri,"'ru11 r.ates ol'wages for the saicl ernployment vide Notification No. S.O. 1994

(e) clatecl 7.tt.2008. There is no referehce in the Act to terms like 'indLtstry', ,estabiish.rent' and 'enterprise'nor is thbre any mention even by irnplication that thc Act applies onlY to them.

¶36O' l6e coltrrrry, while defining the term 'employer' under Section 2(e) of' the Act, Lhe Act has macle cleal that it is applicable to scheduled ernploynrents carriccl on i6 a fac.toly, scheduled employments under the conttlol of an)/ Gorrcr.rrrrrent ir-r lnclia, schecluled ernploynients under any local authprity and schcclLilecl enrploytnents in any other case' 37 . 'l.lrere is 611 clirect or indirect rnention in the Act that the seheduleci eprpioyrrrcrtl has tt> be caniecl on by an inclustly' The Act applied tc arl e'r'loy're't rvhich is sclieclr.rlecl irrespective of who carries on that sbhcdr'rleci ern;lloytrrelrt. i :18. On lhe issue No. (ii) Whether rJJerlerl lo ['re the employel uncle'r the AIIMS or Sulabh lnternational should Lre Act having lesponsibility to pay minitlnm W.P.(C) Nos. 59214, 6059' 68/2012 3'l ; wages, the learnecl ALrthority has helcl' that Section 2(") of the Act defined 'erttlrloyer'as ,,{En1t person who employs, wkether clirectly or throwgh anotleer person, or wkether'oI7 behalf of hirnself or &ny otker persone one ot'rnore ernployees in uny schedwled ernploynterat' in respect of which nrinimutnt rates of wages hnve been fixed under tltis tilct, and ----------:-"'

39.. It is recorclecl in the impugned olcler that in the instant case, the so called volurrLeers Save beerr cleployed in the scheduled employment of sweeping.and cleanirrg b), Sulabh International directly. It is also not in dispute that they have been cleployecl by AIIMS though strlabl'r Intemational in said schedr-rlecl e'rpl.1,urenl. T'herefore, both having satisfied the definition of 'employer' are joilLly apcl seve;ally responsible for payrnelt o'[tninimum wages to the employecl or cleployecl. In this case, AIIMS as ernployer can in no case escape the r.esponsibility o1'payrnent of minimllm wages to the employed as the amor-rnt paid by ir to thc Surlabh International for the pllrpose of payment to the employed is less tlrarr [hc lrritriurutur t'ates of wages fixed by the Govemnent'

¶40Orr issre No. (iii) Whether the persons associated with sulabh International are ,crlployees, .vrithir-r the meaning uncler the Act, the learned Autholity has reliecl . Lrlron a oase clecicled by Jhafkhancl High Court titled Robert Toppo V* State of Jltrrkltun;, wherein it has been observecl that "there is no provision in the Act or ip tfte liLrles that ar,y 'shratnclan' shonld n'ot be'tleated as labour'" tll. ,Ihe learnecl Ar.rthority has obselved that the Sulabh lnternational may be a vol.rrrrtar-y organization, but it does not necessarily mean that the pelsons cleployed i' iL ar.e all volunteers. Tbe'very fact that the persons employed ol deployecl by SLrlab[ Iulelpatiorral have clairnec] the mininlllm.wages under the Act by filing their clairrrs establishes that they ere not volunteels. Had they been volunteers, W.P.(C) Nos. 5944. 5059'68/20L2 Page 29 ot35 \^/hy wor.rtd they clairl rninimurn wages? Therefore, the petitionel is treating the emplo)recl pelsolls as volunteers only with a view to depriving them of rninimum wages so that either or both of thern gain ottt of this systern'

¶42C)' t.[ie issure whethet the jr-rdgrnent'of the Fligh Courl of Patna, as tnentioued above, has a bearing on the issue raised in the instant claims, the learned Ar-rthority lras lrelc'l ils tlndet'" An examination of the itrclgtnent dated 9.2'1990 of [-lop'ble Patna. Fligh Corit in C.W.JC. No' 3408 of 1989 reveals that the Hon',nle cottrt tn that itdgment helcl sulabh [nternational not to be 'indt.tstryt' within the meaning of section 2(l of the Inclttstrial Disptttes Act, 1947. As it has already been clisctL|ssecl in the foregoingiparagraph that the application of A4inintunt LYages Act,i94B ias nothing to do with 'indttstry' and ' tl.ta.t the aa ls applicabte to schedttled employments und'er th'e ' act i.ryespecti.ve of tvhether it is can"ied on by an indt'ntt'y or not, the .iuclgntent appears to have no bea'ring o1t this case. The ,or'tu,rt\on o.f tii O.p. No. 2 thal. the Hon'ble High Couu"t held that StLLabh Interncttional no't being an indatstr!, no industrial as y,eLl. cts Labotrr lavvs can be ntade application to the organizcttion is totalLl) otn of place ancl rnisqrtoted. The IIon'ble Efigle Court ne,er ruled that no ktbolu' luws cor'tld be applied to Sulsblt InternrYlional' fitr,u,ther, it ntalt be aclclec] that the case exami'necl by the I-[o,,ble Lligh Cotrt is tha.t of consirtrction of latrines an'cl . L,,inals tt1, Sailabh for the trse of the pttblic which was helcl to be not''indirstrlt' whereas the case tLnder thts claittz application is sveeltipg cticl cleaning in the'establishment of AIIfuIS by Sil'ablt . in llte citltctci't1' cts a contractor or an otttsourced age,nc'v-' " ' 4:1. I riole that the lcarirecl Authority utrder the Minimurn Wages Act has consicrer.ecl each ancr every aspect raised by the petitioners including the jucigment crarecr 27.11.2003 of trris couit passed in crl. Misc. (NI) Petition No. 3821.2002' 'l-he relevarrI pclrtion reads as uncler:- W.P.(C) l\os. 5944, 6059-68/2012 3t ,( . t U The Petition No. 3821 of 2002 has been filed as prosecttion complaint against* Sulabh,International 'rtnclet- ,section 22 A of the Act yvhereas the instant claint ctppliccttion has beenfiled tLnder section 22(2) of the Act. Both the cases clo not itand in the Samefooting. The ntaxitl'tLu't't fine tmder section 22 A is only Rs' 500/- (Rtryees Five HtLndred only) whereas the contpettsatioit ttncl.er sectiort .20 can.go LLp to ten times of the amomt ,s' lt ort p aid vvithout arry' high er limtt. i.ii) T-he contplaint mder section 22 A has been filed by att inspector. tmcler. the: Govt. of NCT yvhereas this application tmcler section 20(2) has been filed by the entploltee htruself. Thbrefore, it is likely that the persons ct,ssociated with the complaint under sectton 22 A were ttolrtnteers, brtt the aggrieved person fiIing the claim case hintself uncler section 22(2) cottld certainly not be a vol.t'rnteer'. it,) The juctgntent of the Hon'ble High coru't has inter-alict talcen in to considey.a'tion a c'ircular bearing No. 1291. d.atect 3.4.2001 issrrccl by the Labottr Department of Govt. . oJ-NCT of Dellti to the e.ffect that Sttlabh International-is neither an '/ndt6try nor cfi,t'establishment. But no iuch cit"ctrlar has been issated by the central government. t,) Strlctbh International. not being a.n establishment und'er . the Shops and Estctbl.ishntent Act as decid.ed by variot'ts High Cotn"t,s, the minintrtm rates of wages fixed by the governtnent of NCT of Delhi in respect of all shop,s and. establishments rmcler the luli.nintwn wages Act, 1948 ,zight not be appt.icable to S'ulabh. Internattonal. But no ,rr.,il, stitrtulation exists in the jttrisdiction of the cenlral gotternment. 'stveeping and Cleaning' itself .is a schedttled entploltment in respect ofwhich minimum rates o/'wages have heen' fixed by the central goverrunent tmcler the Mini.mum lhages Act, 1948. The FIon'ble Cotyt di.d notvhere.cdtegorically rule that the Iu[ininnm Wages Act, ] 948 did not apply to Sulabh Internatic)na.!. " tu o

vi) Page'3l of 35 W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-6812012 t ul lf .''l' ll ilt llt [il I I ll tl [t lll ]l ;.rlf lrltrl tl 'hi I[; Il,illitrUl X I I qa.. "f6e lear-rrecl Authority after dealing with all the issues franr.ed'have finally ' opinccl as itnclcr:- It goes yvithotLt sarving that the o.P.s have caused con,siclerable hardship to the applicant-employee by not pcrying hint his rightfitl cties. consiclering the plight of th7 low paid ctpplicant'iriplq,ue, enorn'tol'ts sttffering caused to hint over a ttet)) lorg puriocl of thne ancl above aII the .provisions of lv[ininttutt fvctges, Act, ]g4Biprovidingfor compensation up to tep tipte5 o1'ine antotnzt short paid, I am of the considered Opi.ttion that the ends of justice shall be met if compensation ecl.ttitta.lent to .fitte times of the amortnt short paid to the applicant i.e. iRs. 61765 X 5 : 308825/-,(\uyees Three lakh iiglrt tltottsancl eight htmclrecl h'venty five only) is ais-o paid to the enr.plol)ee ol)er ancl aboie the antotrnt short paid' Thus tt' totc.rl antotmt of Rs.3,70590/- (Rt'tpess Three lakh"seventy thou,ynncl .fit,e hlinclrecl ninety onfi) is requtired to be paid to the clPPl i c an t - e mP I o1t e e' As alrecLcly cfiscttssecl, both the O.P. Nos. I i.e Atl Inclict Instirttte of Mictical Sciettces anct" O.P. No. 2 i'e' Silablt ' Irte.rnntiona! being 'entltloyer" trncler th.e Act are several\t cLnd jointlv responsible for pcryntqt of minimttm vvages to the a,ttlicant-intltloyee. It is, tlterefore, dectdecl in the interest of eq.ttillt, .fairniss -ancl reasonableness that the amount required to , nu puiit tc't thc cppl.icant--etnployee shorid be borne eclt'Lally by the o.!. No.l ctnd o.P. tvo.2. Accordingly, I clirect that an ,,nror.r)t of Rs IB52g5/- (Rt'rpees one lalch eighty five thousan'd' h.to htmch,ecl ni.nty five on\t) be paicl b), the o.P. No.2 i.e. .S rlalth Intentational to the applicant-employee' tobei#:!;:,",lJl,io'ir'!"1,,:i:,i;i;:"",:;i,I::;ri;:,;:"0:;:;; i.n .fr-rvoi.rt-of the ctppli.cant-etnploltee payable ctt New Delhi v, iih in t 0 ctays f"om the clate of receipt of this order. "

¶45Aflcrr hearilg tle learnecl counsel for the petitioner, it is emerged that the issLre cleciclecl bv .fte Patna High Couil u'as that whether the petitioner vias an i'clLrstry urcler the hrclurstrial Disputes Act a'cl the same issue again framecl b;'' this Page 37 of 35. W.P.(C) l\ltis. 5944', 6059'68l2AI2 \l Cl.our-t, ers mentionecl above. While relying Lrpon the jr-rdgment of Patna High Corttl, t5e sa'e view liacl been taken by this Courl albo. However, neither this Cor-rrt nor: i tlie patrra l-Iigh Court, as strongly relied upon by the petitionef, has decided the issue o. the lMir-rirnurrn Wages Act. The petitioner may not be an 'industly' under tlre lriclr-rstrial Disputes Act, Ig47, ancl may be a 'voluntary organization', but the issirc irr hancl is rvhether fiorthe services rencle-red forthe petitioner, would come in purrvieu, ol't6e Act ancl cleployed persons wor-rld be entitled for minimum wages, it is entitlecl to pay the tninimllm wages or nbt'

¶46.l'he petitionel organization has entered into a Memolanclum of .lJrclersl_ancling, as rnentionecl above, by which the services were lendered to the Alt Inclia lrrslitr-rte of Meclical Sciences. The poor people fiom the lowel stlata of " the sociely 6ave been engaged for this plnpose apd they were given the wagesj les's"' thap the tirinimutl wages presclibed ulder the Minimurn Wages Act' The or.gariiza[ion pray be a vo]r-rntaty,but a poolpel'son who has to fill his belly as well cle'cnclent,s members o1'tl're farnily cannot afford to be a volttnteet. A person who. Iiars acclurirecl the uri.nimnm requirenrent in the life nray do some voluntary service Ibr. a clay or a two or maximum for a weelc but not on a petrnanent basis. Tlie r.espopclept. Trlo. 2 is a person whose survival depends tlpon whatever given/paicl by t6e e'r'loyer or who is takinghis services. If he works volnntary even fol a clay, his u,hole lamity would be stalving. Therefore,. subh a person cannot work volurnLary everr lbr a clay. One cannot expect he woulcl be a volunteer fol rnonths arrcl yeat's together. 41 . I ar' colscious tliat against the judgment of the Patna High Cour1, tlre Union o[ frclia fileii eu1 sl.p befiore the snpr-eme cour1, which was disrnissecl as rvithclrarv' irnd Lheru-eilter a review was filecl ancl the same was also disinissed. Page 33 of35 I it iI c W.P.(C) Nlos. 5944, 60s9-68/2012 c qu- -l-herefrr.e, rro clecision has beentaken by,the Supremb Courl onthemerits ancl the 'rarter has lreen re|errecl to the La'ger Bench, which is still pending. 4 g. I have no hesitation to say that on one side the petitioner is working for a .oble calrse, op tle other hand, by way of giving the colour of voluntary services, it is cx;rloiLirrg the poor people'

¶49l arrr conscior-rs that the view taken by this Court was different frorn.the isstte in liarrcl, therefor.e, lle.re is no qLrestion of per incrriam and the violation of law of prececjerrt. "fhis CloLrrt woulcl have been gone wlong if the sarle issue has bden cleciclecl by this Court ancl the contrary vie.w is taken in the present case'

¶50'l'lie issne in the instant petitions is not res integra as the same has been cleciclecl in Feoples {Inion for Demo'crrvtic R.ights ancl ors vs'. union oi' Indiu(,suyy'n),wltereirr it has been held that orclilarily no one wollld willingly srrpply lalrpur clr service io another'for less than the minimLlm wage, '"'r'hen he 'l<rror,r,:; tliat. r-rncler the law he is entitlecl to get iriinitnum wages for tlre labcur or ser.vicr-: 'roviclecl by him. In view of that it is helcl that where a person provicles; latrourr or service to another 1'or reurnneration which is less than the minimttm \,vage, tfte latrour or service provicled by him clearly, falls within the scope and amtrit cll'tlte wolds 'iot'cecl labottr' ltncler Article 23.

¶51Scc[ion 25 of tlre Vlinimum Wages Act provides that any contract of ^gree're'l., whereby' arr employee either lelinquisires or reduces his riglit lo a' r'irrirrunr r.ate o1'\^/ages or any prirrilege or concession accn-ring to hirn uriidel this Act s6all lre lull aricl voicl in so far as it pr-irports to reduce the minimum rate of wagcs lixecl lttrcler this Act'

¶52Mor-eover, Section ),(e) of the Minimurn Wages Aot provides that thd er''loyer mealts u,',y 1r.rro' who ernploys whether directly or through anotlrer W.l).(C) l\os. 5944, 6O5g-68120L2 ' o q1 t. l)ersorl or whether on behalf of himself or any other person one or more ernployees in any sclieclulecl employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been flxecl'tttrcler this Act' -53. ',-l'herefore, fincling no discrepancy in the impr-rgned otdet, I confirm the sal-ne. 'I5e preserit petitions, being without merits, Are dismissed' No order as to cosLs. CM" No. 12240/201'2 (fon staY) with the clisposal of the petition itself, the instant application has become inn.Lrcluous. -l'he sanle is disposed of accordingly' ^^y\/ k\)Y' \x. suR.EsX{ lt(A'[T', .]'' Oc't'OulEl{. x8, 2012 ItS/sb W.P.(C) Nos. 5944, 6059-68/2012

+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c\ 606112012 & cM.No. 16377-78/2012. CAV.97312012 ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Katyal and Mr. Sanjeev Joshi, Advs. Versus GOVIND AND ANR Throush: ..... Respondents Mr. Anurag Dubey, Mr. D.P. Pandey and Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Advs. forM. o CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JTTSTICE SURESH KAIT