Holding

The amended Entry 27 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 includes ferries as establishments; therefore the Act applies and the workmen are entitled to the minimum wages prescribed in the relevant notifications.

Summary

The petitioner, on behalf of workmen employed on two ferries operating at Bhagalpur and Sultanganj, alleged that they were not paid the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The key question was whether the ferries qualified as "establishments" within the meaning of the amended Entry 27 of the Act’s Schedule, which would bring the employment under the Act’s ambit. The Court examined the amendment to Entry 27, which expanded its scope to cover employment in any shop or establishment, and interpreted the term "establishment" using the definition in Section 2(6) of the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953. It held that the ferries, being a business of plying ferries across the Ganges, satisfy this definition and therefore fall within Entry 27. Consequently, the Minimum Wages Act applies, and the workmen are entitled to the minimum wages fixed by the notifications of 25 June 1975 (as amended on 20 January 1979) and 26 November 1981. The Court directed the Bihar Labour Department to facilitate claims for arrears and ordered the respondent to pay the due wages and costs. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether employment on ferries constitutes an "establishment" under the amended Entry 27 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is applicable to the workmen employed on the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries.
Which minimum‑wage notifications govern the wages payable to those workmen.

Legislation cited

Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953s. 2(6)
Minimum Wages Act, 1948s. 3(1)(a), s. 3(IA), s. 5(2)

Subjects

Minimum wagesEntry 27Establishment definitionFerry workersBihar Shops & Establishments ActLabour lawWage arrearsArticle 32Writ petition

Judgment

1011

RAM KUMAR M!SRA \
A
v.

STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

' September 21, 1983
B
~

(P. N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND
RANGANA TH MISRA, JJ.]
'
Minimum Wages Act, 1948-Schedule-Entry 27-Scope of-Applicable
to employment in ferries plying across Ganges in Bihar.
c
Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, .1953-Sec. 2(6)-Definition' of
'Establishment'.-Scopeof-Business of trade of plying ferries across Ganges-
.An establishment.

The petitioner complailled that the workmen employed in the two
ferries, one at Bhagalpur and the other at Sultaoganj, operated by respondent D
,\ No. 5 were not being Paid mipimum wages as prescribed by the relevant noti·
fl.cations issued ·by the State of Bihar under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Respondent No. 5 contended that the Minimum Wages Act was not·applicable
to these two ferries. ·

Allowing the writ petition, E
HELD : · The Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act lists various employ-
ments in respect of which minimum rates of wages can be fixed by the appro·
priate Government. Entry 27 of the Schedule which dealt with employment
in shops and establishments registered under the Bihar Shops and Establish-
ments Act, 1953, was an1ended on 25.11.1978 to enlarge its scope to cover
~mployment in any shop or establishment O!her .than that covered unckr any
of the other entries in the Schedule. It is clear from the Eiplanation to the
ameo'ded Entry 27 that the word. "establishment" ·in that entry has the same
meaning which is assigned to it in the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act,

,. 1953 and the court n1ust, therefore, look at the definition of "establishment ..
as given in the Bihar Shops and Estal;llishments Act, 1953 in order to determine
as to whether thC? Bhagalpur. and Sultanganj ferries could be Said to be estab-
lishments within the meaning of the amended Entry 27. The word "establish-
G
ment" is defined in see. 2(6) ofBihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 to-
mean an establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession or
any work in connection with, or incidental OJ anciliary ·to, any business, trade
or profession. _ Now it can hardly be disputed that the Bhagalpur and
Sultan£:anj ferries are establishments which carry on business or trade of H
plying ferries across the Ganges and they are C1early within the meaning of the
word "establishment" in sec. 2(6) of t_he Bibar Shops and Establishments Act,
1953 and consequently they would also ·be establishments within the meaning ..
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R.
of that expression as used in the amended Entry 27. The Minimum Wages
A Act, 1948 would, therefore, clearly be applicable to employment in· the
Bhagalpur, and Sultanganj ferries. (1014 D, G-H; 1015 AB G H; tol6A]

The workmen employed in the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries were
entitled to receive minimum wage as set out in· the Notification dated 25th
June !975 as amended by the Notification dated 20th January 1979 for the
periOd from 20th January 1979 upto 25th November 1981 and thereafter at the
B rate fixed in the Notification dated 26th November 1981. (1016 F-GJ

ORIGINAL JURISDTCTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 53 of
1983.

c (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

J. Verghese for the _Petitioner. \.

<4. K. Sanghi and D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWA n, J. This writ petition has been filed on the· basis
of a letter addressed by one Ram Kumar Misra, .President of Free
Legal Aid Committee, Bhagalpur. This letter complained that the
E workmen employed i'n two ferries one at Bhagalpur and the other at
Sulianganj-which were being operated by respondent No. 5 were
not being paid minimum wages as prescribed by the relevant noti-
fication isrned under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The wages
of the workmen employed in these two ferries were given- i!l the
annexure-to the letter and the amount of the difference between
F what the petitioner claimed to be the minimum wage payable to the
workmen and the actual wage paid to them, was' set out in the
annexure. The letter was treated as a writ petition and by an· order
dated 25th January, 1983, this Court issued notice on the writ
petition and on Mr. Goburdhan, learned· Advocate, for the State
G of Bihar, waiving service of the notice, the District Magistrate,
Bhagalpur and Ram Kumar Misra, the petitioner, were directed to
to jointly carry out an inquiry into the various averments made in
the writ petition and submit a report within two weeks from the _date
of the order. The direction for holding an inquiry was given by us
H because we wanted to. satisfy ourselves whether there was a prima
facie case to proceed further with the writ petition. Pursuant to
the order made by· us, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and the
petitioner conducted a joint inquiry into the various averme~ts made
RAM KUMAR ~- BIHAR (Bhagwati, J.) 1013

in the writ petition and they finally submitted a report dated 23rd
February, 1983 stating that in their opinion, in the light of the A
material gathered at the inquiry, the ferries operate? by respondent
No. 5 at Bhagalpur and Sultanganj were establishments to which the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applied, since they fell within Entry 27 in
the Schedule to the Act and respondent No. 5 was, therefore, liable
·to pay minimum wage to the-workmen employed in the two ferries
) B
with effect from 20th January, 1979, that being the date when the
notification issued under section 3(1) (a) of the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 was amended so as to make the minimum wage applicable
to "employment in any shop or establishment other than that
'covered under any of the other ·entries in this Schedule."
c
We may point out that there was also. one other complaint
in the writ petition, namely,· that the workmen were made to work
as bonded labourers, but his complaint was not found to be correct
by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and the petitioner in the
Report made by them. . D

When the r~port was received by this Court, copies thereof
were supplied to the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the
parties. Respondent No. 5, who_ was joined as respondent to the
. writ petitions on an application made by him and who appeared at
the hearing of the writ petition, disputed the correctness of the E
report made by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and the petitioner.
It is not necessary for tis for the purpose of the present \\'fit petition
to go into the question whether. the facts stated in the report are
, . correct or not, because, as we hav~ stated above, the report was
called for by us for the purpose of satisfying ourselves that there F
was a primafacie case for respondent No. 5 .to meet. The only
question which was raised before us and argued vehemently on both
sides was whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applied at all to
. the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries owned ·by respondent No. 5.
The argument of respondent No. 5 was that the Minimum Wages
. .
Act, 1948 had no application to these two ferries since they did not G
fall within any of the entries in the Schedule to tlie Act, whereas,
on the other hand, both the petitioner and the State Government
argued that the Act applied to_ these two ferries because they were
_.l establishments within Entry 27 of the Schedule to the Act. These .
rival contentions raised 'a short question of construction of the li
relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, l 948 and the
notifications issued under that Act.
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c,R... ·

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides· for fixation of
A Minimum rates of wages in certain employment$. . Sec. 3(1) (a)
provides that the appropriate Government shall fix the minimum
rates of wages• payable to employees employed in. an employment
specified in Part I or Part' II of. the Schedule. Sub-section (IA) of
S~ction 3 enacts 'that "Notwithstanding ·anything contained in sub-

B sec. (!), the appropriate Government may refrain from fi&ing
minimum rates. of wages.in respect .of any scheduled employment in
which thete are in the whole state less than 1,000 employees engaged
in such employment." It is obvious that sub-sec. (IA) of sec. 3 does
not preclude the appropriate Government from fixjng minimum
rates of wages in respect of any , scheduled employment even if there
c · are in the whole State less them 1,000 employees engaged in such·
employment. It merely empowers the appropriate Government to
· refrain from fixing min:imum rates of wages in respect of such ·
e~ployment. Leaving ii open to the appropriate Gov.ernment to
fix ·minimum rates of wages in respect of .such employment, if it so ·
thinks fit.
D.,
·The Schedule to the Act lists· various employments in respect
of which minimum rates of wages can be fixed by the appropriate
, .
Government. Mr. Verghese, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, relied on Entry 6 of the Schedule which reads
E "Employment under any local authority" but we do not think any
reliance can be placed upon it, . because in the present case, the
workmen, on whose behalf claim of minimum wages bas been made, .
are not employed under any local authority. Respondent No. 5,
who is the employer . of the workmen employed in the Bbagalpur
and Sultanganj ferries, isnot a local authority; be is merely a lessee
F of the tolls of public ferry. Entry 6 in the schedule can, therefore,
have no application in the present case, but there is Entry 27 in the·
Schedule which helps the petitioner.. This Entry prior to its amend-
ment by the State. Government on 25th· November, 1978 read as
follows :
G
"27. Employment in Shops and Establishments
registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act,
1953 other than those covered under any of the other
• ·entries in this Schedule." '
l, L
H
The Bhagalpur and'Sultanganj ferries were not· establishments regis-
tered under. the Bjhar Shops and Establishments Acl,J953 and prima
\
•
RAM K.tiMAR v. BIHAR (Bhagwati, J.)
•
iois
,. facie, they would not, therefore, be covered by Entry ·27 as it stood
prior to 25th November, 1978. · But Entry 27 was amended to A
"' enlarge its scope and the amended Entry ran as follows:

"27. Employment in any Shop or establishment
· other than that covered under any of the other entries in
)
this Schedule." B
The State Government thereafter issued a Notification dated 20th
January, 1979 in exercise of the powers conferred under sec. 3(1) (a)
of the Minimum, Wages Act, 1948 amending an earlier Notification
dated 25th June, 1975 under which rates of minimum wages were
fixed for different categories of employees· employed in shops and c
establishments registered under the Bihar Shops and Establishments
Act, 1953 other than !hose covered under any of the other entries in
the Schedule and by this amendment, the words "Emr.loyment in
Shops and· establishments registered under the Bihar Shops and
Establishments Act, 1953 other than those covered under any of the D
other eµtries in this Schedule" were substituted by the words
"Employment in any shop or establishment other than that covered
under any of the other entries in this Schedule." The object of the
amendmentwas to make the Notification dated 25th June, 1975
applicabfe in relation to employment in any. shop or establishment
other than that covered under any of the other entries in the E
Schedule so as to bring it in line with the amended Entry 27 in the
Schedule.

Now it is clear from the Explanation to the amended Entry 27
that the word "establishment" in that ·entry has the same meaning
which is assigned to it in the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act,
1953 and we must, therefore, look at the definition of "establishment"
as given in the Bihar Shops and Estab)ishments Act, 195'.l in order
to determine as to whether the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries
could be· said to be establishments within the meaning of the amended
Entry 27. The word "establishment" is defined in sec. 2(6) of the
Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 to mean an establishment
which carries on any business, trade or profession or any work in
connection with, or incidential or ancillary to, any businees, trade
or profession. Now it can hardly be disputed that the B)lagalpur
and _Sultanganj ferries are establishments . which carry on H
business or trade of plying ferries across the Ganges and they are
clearly within the meaning of the word ""establishment" in sec. 2(6)
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l1983] 3 s.c.lt.

of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 and consquently
they would also be establishments within the meaning of that '
·' expression as usea in the amended Entry 27, The Minium Wages
Act, 1948 would, therefore, clearly be' applicable to employment in ../'
the Bhagalpur and Sulanganj ferries.· Since the. Notification dated
25th June, 1975 as amended by the Notification dated 20th January,
1979 fixes rates of minimum wages for different categories of ,
B employees
. ~ ..
employed in any establishment, which . would cover the '
Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries, there can be no doubt that the
· wo>kmen employed in these· two ferries were entitled to receive·
minimum wages as laid down in the Notification dated 25th June,
1975 read with the Notification dated 20th January, 1979 with effect
.C from the date of ·latter notification.

It appears that a further Notification .was issued. by the I

State Government on 26th November, 1981 in exercise ofthe powers
conferred under sec. 3(1) read with sec. 5(2) Qf the Minimum Wages
D ·Act, 1948 revising the minimum rates of wages for different categories
of employees employed in any shop or establishment other than that
covered under any of the other entries in the Schedule. This Noti-
fication came into force with effect from 26th November, 1981. The
workmen emloyed in Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries were, there-
fore, entitiled to the revised mi_nimum wage as set out in the
E Notification dated 26th November, 1981 with effect from that
date.

We accordingly reach the conclusion that the workmen
employed in the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries were entitled to
receiv<:: minimum. wage as set out in the Notification dated 25th June
1975 as amended by the Notification dated,20th January 1979 for
the period from 20th January 1979 upto. 25th November 1981 and
thereafter at the rate fixed inthe Notification dated 26th Nove~ber
1981. The question, however, remains whether the workmen. were
paid wages at these minimum retes. Since. there is a dispute between
the parties in regard to this question, the argument of the petitioner
.; 6eing that the wo_rkmen were not paid wages at these minimum Tates,
while th.e contention of respondent No. 5 being that they where ·So
paid, it becomes necessary to give directions for the purpose of
H determining whether the workmen employed in these two ferries
were p11id wages, at these minimum rates with" effect from 20th
January, 1979. )Ve would therefore direct the Labour Department
of the Gov.ernll).ent of Bihar to intimate to the petitioner as to which
RAM KUMAR v. BIHAR (Bhagwati, J.) 1()17

is the appropriate authority under the Minimum wages Act, 1948
for adjudicating upon the claims of the workmen employed in these A
two ferries for arrears of minimum wage. The appropriate authority
will, by adopting suitable means including the giving of publicity,
invite the workmen to file their claims for arrears of minimum wage
and not only the workmen will be entitled to file their claims but
the petitioner who has moved this court will also be at liberty to file
claims on behalf of the workm.en for arrears of minimum wage.
B
The appropirate authority will inquire into all such claims which
may be filed before it by or on behalf of the worhmen and determine,
after giving full opportunity to respondent No. 5 of being heard in
the matter; whether any and if so . what arrears of minimum wage
in the ·light of this judgment reamain to be paid.by respondent No. 5 c
to the workmen employed in these two ferriei. The workmen will be
entitled to appear before the approrpriate authority either personally
or through their agent or advocate and the petitioner will also .
be at liberty tl1 appear before the appropriate authority on behalf
of the workmen .. If any amount is determined by the appropriate
authority to be p1yable by respondent No. 5 to any of the workmen D
in respect of the · arrears of minimum wage, respondent No. 5 is
directed to make payment of the same within one month from the
date of the order of the appropriate authority.· The appropriate
authority will carry put the directions given by us and complete the
assignment entrusted to it within six months from today. We would E
also direct re,pondent No. 5 to pay to the workmen employed· in
these two ferries minimum wage at the rate fixed under the Noti-
fication dated 26th November 1981 or at such other revised rate or
rates as may be fixed from time to time.

So far as the costs 9fthe writ petition are.concerned since the F
petitioner has come to this Court for the purpose of vindicating the
rights of poor workmen, he we would dieect the State of Bihar to
pay to t!te petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,000 by way of costs.

H.S.K. Petition allowed.