Minimum Wages Act, 1948 -- S.5 -- Rubber Products Industry --
Managers, do not come under the definition of ‘employee’ under the Act
Therefore, it is held that the prescription of minimum wages for Managers, in the notification cannot be sustained
Petitioners, an Association and two Industries engaged in the Rubber Product
Industry, has approached the High Court challenging the notification revising
minimum wages and providing for such minimum wages to be paid to various
categories of employees engaged in the Rubber Products Industry. They
raised manifold contentions. The first one was that the imposition of service
weightage was bad in law. The next one was with respect to payment of
monthly salary to managerial staff. The next contention was with respect to
the disparity between the employers engaged in a particular industry. And
finally, for inclusion of Managers for whom also the minimum wages has been
prescribed. The Court repelled all the contentions except the last one.
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court held:
A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government which would indicate
that what was intended was to cover “Managers without administrative and
managerial powers who come within the purview of the Act. It is also admitted that any Manager having managerial, administrative and financial powers does not come within the purview of the term ‘employee’”. Such a distinction is merely illusory and Managers definitely would not come within the definition of ‘employee’ as defined under the Act. The provision of ‘minimum wages’ to Managers in Ext. P5 cannot be enforced by the Government and to that extent, Ext. P5 would be set aside. However, in all other respects, Ext. P5 is confirmed. 2013 4 KHC 841
Managers, do not come under the definition of ‘employee’ under the Act
Therefore, it is held that the prescription of minimum wages for Managers, in the notification cannot be sustained
Petitioners, an Association and two Industries engaged in the Rubber Product
Industry, has approached the High Court challenging the notification revising
minimum wages and providing for such minimum wages to be paid to various
categories of employees engaged in the Rubber Products Industry. They
raised manifold contentions. The first one was that the imposition of service
weightage was bad in law. The next one was with respect to payment of
monthly salary to managerial staff. The next contention was with respect to
the disparity between the employers engaged in a particular industry. And
finally, for inclusion of Managers for whom also the minimum wages has been
prescribed. The Court repelled all the contentions except the last one.
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court held:
A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government which would indicate
that what was intended was to cover “Managers without administrative and
managerial powers who come within the purview of the Act. It is also admitted that any Manager having managerial, administrative and financial powers does not come within the purview of the term ‘employee’”. Such a distinction is merely illusory and Managers definitely would not come within the definition of ‘employee’ as defined under the Act. The provision of ‘minimum wages’ to Managers in Ext. P5 cannot be enforced by the Government and to that extent, Ext. P5 would be set aside. However, in all other respects, Ext. P5 is confirmed. 2013 4 KHC 841
No comments:
Post a Comment