State of Jammu and Kashmir v Abdul Majid

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
Altamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2007-01-05
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal stands disposed of in terms: The Division Bench’s directive to deposit wages under the Minimum Wages Act from January 1992 to March 2006 is not interfered with; however, the four-week extension to deposit is granted. The deposited amount shall be held by the Registrar General and invested in a short-term fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, subject to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal. The direction to pay within two weeks pending disposal is not warranted at this stage. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Jammu and Kashmir

Respondents

Abdul Majid

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. H. Nayak (Advocate General)
• Anis Suhrawardy

Counsels for Respondents

• Vijay Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns interim orders issued in a writ petition by a respondent-workman challenging wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, in a writ petition originally heard by a Single Judge, directed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay minimum wages from January 1992 at rates prevailing from time to time and to consider the respondent for regularization as a class IV employee within two months, with non-observance resulting in contempt. The State appealed, and the High Court’s Division Bench issued an interim order directing the State to deposit wages under the Minimum Wages Act from January 1992 to March 2006 and to pay the amount within two weeks. The Supreme Court, while noting that the Letters Patent Appeal was pending, held that the Division Bench’s order to pay within two weeks was not warranted at this stage, but did not interfered with the deposit obligation under the Minimum Wages Act. The Court granted the State four more weeks to deposit, directing the deposited funds to be placed with the Registrar General and invested in a short-term fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, subject to the final outcome of the LPA. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Contempt of court

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the High Court’s interim directions directing payment of wages within two weeks pending disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal were unwarranted at this stage, given that the appeal is pending. They contended that the directive to deposit wages under the Minimum Wages Act from January 1992 to March 2006 should be permitted to stand only as an interim measure with caution and that final determination should await the LPA’s outcome. They urged that the funds be deposited with the Registrar General and invested in short-term fixed deposits until final resolution, and that no premature order to pay beyond interim safeguards should be issued.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-workman Abdul Majid sought compliance with the writ petition’s direction to pay minimum wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act from January 1992 onward, arguing that wages up to March 2006 should be deposited and paid as determined by statutory rates, with the Division Bench’s interim order ensuring protection of wages during pendency of the LPA. He supported the deposit and timely payment, and urged expedited resolution of the LPA to secure arrears and regularization benefits.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

B _i_ ## ST ATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. v. ## ABDUL MAJID ## JANUARY 5, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ## _Interim Order:_ _High Court-Single Judge in a writ peticion directing State Government,_ inter alia, _to pay wages of workman from a specified dateState filing a Letters Patent appeal challenging said order-Division Bench by an interim order directing State Government to deposit the money in terms of Minimum Wages Act and to pay the said amount to respondent within two weeks-Held, direction of Division Bench to pay the amount to respondent pending Letters Patent appeal is not warranted at this stage-However, the direction to deposit the wages in accordance with terms of Minimum Wages Act not interfered with and time granted for the purpose-The amount so deposited shall be subject to final outcome of Letters Patent appeal-Minimum Wages Act, 1948._ C D In a writ petition filed by respondent-workman, the Single Judge of the High Court directed the appellants, _inter alia,_ to pay the respondents minimum wages w.e.f. January 1992 at such rates as were prevalent from time to time. The appellants filed a Letters Patent appeal, and the Division Bench of the High Court by an interim order directed the appellants to deposit the wages in accordance with the terms of Minimum Wages Act from January 1992 to March 2006 and to pay the said amount to the respondents within two weeks. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the instant appeal. E F ## Disposing of the appeal, the Court G HELD: The direction of Division Bench of the High Court to pay the amount to the respondent within two weeks pending disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal is not warranted at this stage. However, the direction requiring the State to deposit the wages of the respondent in accordance with the terms of Minimum Wages Act from January, 1992 to March, _2006_ H 213 [2007] I S.C.R. l-J } 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS A B is not interfered with. Therefore, further time is given to the State by four weeks to comply with the direction in regard to the deposit of the minimum wages, which shall be subject to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal. On such deposit, the Registrar General is directed to invest the same in a short term fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. [Para 6) [215-E-H, 216-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 65 ot:~007 From the interim Order dated 3.4.2006 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in LPA (SW) No. 81/2006, C.M.P. No. 53/2006. ., c AtlafH. Nayak, A.G., State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anis Suhrawardy for the Appellants. Vijay Kumar for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Leave granted. E 2. Heard Mr.Altaf H.Nayak, learned Advocate-General for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Mr.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The appeal is directed against an interim order dt.03.04.2006 passed by the High Court in LPA(SW) No.8112006 and CMP No.53/2006 arising out ofSWP No.1513/2004. F 4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein issued the following directions:- - "(I) pay to the petitioner minimum wages as payable under the Minimum Wages Act w.e.f. January, 1992 at such rates as were prevalent from time to time. G 2. petitioner be considered for regularization as' class iv. H 3. Petitioner be brought on regular establishment as helper/ class-IV whichever be the lowest post available on the regular establishment of the department within a period of two months. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR _v._ ABDUL MAJID [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 215 4. Non-observance of this direction within the stipulate"d period will amount to commission of contempt of court. ·Registrar Judicial shall place this file before this court on the expiry of two months. Copy of this Order shall be furnished to Mrs.Neeru Goswami appearing for respondents for compliance." 5. Aggrieved against the said order, the State has preferred the Letters Patent Appeal which was taken on file as LPA No.8112006. The State challenged the correctness of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the Letters Patent Appeal. Admittedly, the Letters· Patent Appeal filed by the State _is_ pending final disposal. In the meanwhile, the High Court directed the State to deposit the wages of the respondent in accordance with the terms of Minimum Wages Act from January, 1992 to ending March, 2006 and pay this amount to the respondent within two weeks from 03.04.2006. The court has also observed that subject to the above, direction Nos.3 and 4 of the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Aggrieved by the said order, the state has preferred the above appeal in this Court. This Court on 17.07.2006 issued notice on the Special Leave Petition as also on the prayer for interim relief. 6. As noticed earlier, the Letters Patent Appeal is still pending in the High Court. The State has questioned the correctness of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the Letters Patent Appeal. In the meanwhile, the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court directed the State to deposit the wages of the respondent in accordance with the terms of Minimum Wages Act from January, 1992 to ending March, 2006 and pay the said amount to the respondent within two weeks from 03.04.2006. The said direction to pay the amount to the respondent within two weeks pending disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, in our opinion, is not warranted at this stage. However, we are not inclined to set aside the direction issued by the Division Bench directing the State to deposit the wages of the respondent in accordance with the terms of Minimum Wages Act from January, 1992 to ending March, 2006. Therefore, we give further time to the State by four weeks to comply with the direction in regard to the deposit of the minimum wages. The said amount shall be deposited with the Registrar General of the High. Court subject to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal. On such deposit, the Registrar General is directed A B C D E F G H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. A to invest the same in a short term fixed deposit in a nationalised bank. 7. We request the High Court to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal within three months from the date of receipt of this Order from this Court or on production of the same by either party. • B 8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. RP. Appeal disposed of. _.(_