Calcutta High Court: A single bench comprising of Raja Basu Chowdhury,* J., held that the petitioners have willingly acquiesced to the Government’s decision regarding wage enhancements, and having done so, they cannot now be allowed to challenge the action taken by the State or question the authority of the Government to issue the Advisory.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioners preferred a writ application seeking direction to restrain the respondents from implementing an Advisory dated 27-04-2023 and held the same as illegal, void, and of no effect.
The petitioners employ workers for their tea plantation business, and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act) applies to these workers. In 2015, the Government of West Bengal constituted a Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for the State, which was empowered to determine minimum wages. Prior to this, wages were fixed through tripartite settlements between employers and workers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the pendency of finalizing minimum wages, the Government issued Memoranda from time to time, enhancing the minimum wages for tea garden workers. The petitioners accepted these Memoranda to avoid industrial unrest. On 27-04-2023, the Labour Commissioner issued an Advisory raising the wages of daily rated workers of organized tea gardens to Rs. 250/- per day, effective from 01-06-2023, pending the finalization of the Charter of Demands and revision of minimum wages. The petitioners objected to the Advisory through their advocates, but it was not withdrawn, leading to the filing of the present writ application.
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that the Government lacks the authority to unilaterally raise the wage structure, as there is a Minimum Wages Advisory Committee established to determine minimum wages. It was contended that while issuing the Advisory, the Labour Commissioner acted as a conciliator without the authority to do so under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Act. The petitioners further contended that the Court has previously set aside similar advisory is similar as the Act does not provide for interim measures.
Respondents’ Contentions
The respondents contended that the Minimum Wages Advisory Committee has not finalized the minimum wages despite being constituted in 2015 and the tripartite settlement accepted by the petitioners provides for interim wage increases pending the finalization of minimum wages. It was further contended that the State Government has the authority to enhance wages as an interim measure to secure a living wage and decent conditions of work under Article 43 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observation
The Court observed that the petitioners had consistently accepted wage enhancements through memoranda issued by the Labour Commissioner in the past, without raising objections. Therefore, they could not question the authority of the Government to issue the recent Advisory. The Court considered the conscious approach of both parties to overcome delays in finalizing minimum wages and emphasized the need to finalize minimum wages and directed the State to complete the process within six months.
“The petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. Admittedly, the petitioners having accepted and implemented the previous decisions as regards enhancements as noted above, cannot question the authority of the Government to issue the aforesaid Advisory.”
Court’s Verdict
The Court dismissed the challenge to the Advisory dated 27-03-2023 and directed the State Government to expedite the process and finalize the minimum wages for tea plantation workers within six months from the date of the order. The court refused to stay the operation of its judgment rejecting the challenge to the Advisory.
[Goodricke Group Ltd. v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2241, order dated 01-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Arijit Chaudhuri, Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Mr. Soumya Majumder, Mr. Sharmistha Ghosh, Mr. Amit Ghosh, Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Counsel for the Petitioners;
Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Mr. Amartya Pal, Counsel for the Respondent/State.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
