Allahabad High Court
WORKMEN OF M/S NOVATEUR AND DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. AND ORSversusLABOUR COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the 2000 notification could not be revived because it was superseded by the 2006 notification and the petitioners’ delayed claim could not be entertained.
Summary
The petitioners, workmen of Novateur and Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., challenged a Labour Commissioner order that a 2000 minimum‑wages notification did not apply to them, arguing they were not heard before the decision. The employer had earlier sought clarification on the applicability of the 2000 notification, and the Commissioner, without a hearing, ruled it inapplicable. The workmen later applied for the 2000 notification’s benefits, but the Commissioner rejected the application, citing the later 2006 notification that had already increased wages. The Court examined whether a hearing was mandatory and whether the 2000 notification could be revived despite the superseding 2006 notification. Finding no requirement for a hearing and noting that the 2006 notification had already granted the workers higher wages, the Court held the impugned order was not contrary to law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Labour Commissioner was required to afford a hearing to the workmen before deciding on the applicability of the 2000 minimum‑wages notification.
- Whether the order rejecting the workmen’s application to enforce the 2000 notification is valid in view of the subsequent 2006 notification.
- Whether the workmen can claim benefits of the 2000 notification after a prolonged delay.
Subjects
- minimum wages
- labour commissioner
- notification supersession
- procedural fairness
- writ petition
- workmen rights
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 44356 of 2012
Workmen Of M/S Novateur And Digital Systems
Pvt. Ltd. And Ors .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Labour Commissioner And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Pushpendra
Kumar Sharma, Tiwari Abhishek
Rajesh, Y.K. Sinha, Yogesh Kumar
Sinha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raghav Nayar, Yashwant
Varma, Yashwant Verma
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Raghav Nayar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners before this Court are workmen of M/S Novateur And
Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. and they were paid minimum wages as per the
notification issued from time to time.
3. In the year 2006, a notification dated 24.2.2006 was issued, whereby
minimum wages were enhanced subject to certain conditions.
4. The respondent employer approached the Labour Commissioner that
whether aforesaid notification was applicable or not to them. Labour
Commissioner vide an order dated 15.5.2008 declared that notification
dated 15.5.2000 would not be applicable on the petitioner. Admittedly,
they were not called for hearing.
5. Workmen remained silent for almost 4 years and thereafter filed an
application that notification dated 15.5.2000 be made applicable to them.
6. It is not under dispute that meanwhile another notification dated
24.2.2006 came into force, whereby minimum wages were increased and
workmen were paid accordingly.
WRIC No. 44356 of 2012
2
7. It is the case of the workmen that when they came to know about the
order passed in the year 2008, an application was filed by the workmen to
implement the notification dated 15.5.2000 which got rejected by the
Labour Commissioner vide an order dated 18.04.2012 that it was not
operational since a subsequent notification has come into force.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has challenged the order
dated 18.04.2012 by way of present writ petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that being workmen they
were proper party and their stand ought to have been taken before any
decision was taken by the Labour Commissioner on the application filed
by the employer that notification dated 15.5.2000 was not applicable, but
no steps were taken and as soon as they came to know that they have been
denied benefit of the aforesaid notification, not only they approached the
Labour Commissioner for its implementation, but when it was not granted
they have filed this writ petition.
10. It is further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that
finding returned in the impugned order is not correct.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
impugned order has assigned reasons which are justified. The petitioners
have approached the authorities after many years and their claim was
rightly rejected since notification issued in the year 2000 was not
available since meanwhile, subsequently another notification dated
24.2.2006 came into force and benefit of the same has already been
granted to workman.
12. After considering the aforesaid submissions and records, Court finds
that no provision is brought to the notice of this Court that when an
application was filed by the respondent employer was considered by the
Labour Commissioner that whether the notification dated 15.5.2000 was
applicable or not, the petitioners mandatorily were required to be heard.
Even workmen have not taken any steps for implementation of the
aforesaid notification at relevant time and for first time they approached
the authority in the year 2012 i.e. after 12 years of the issuance of
aforesaid notification and after 4 years of passing the impugned order.
WRIC No. 44356 of 2012
3
13. In the above background Court takes note that notification dated
15.5.2000 cannot be interfered with since subsequent notification dated
24.2.2006 came into existence and benefit of it has already been granted.
14. Otherwise also, on basis of material available, Court does not find that
finding returned in the impugned order is contrary to facts or law.
15. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 15, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…