The companytractor is said to have entered into a memorandum dated 4th July, 1994 with the workmen through their union giving effect to the award of the industrial tribunal and the said settlement has also been endorsed by the Labour Officer and it shows payment of aforesaid sum having been made by the companytractor.
Thus, the Board stopped clearing the bills for enhanced minimum wages claimed by the companytractor.
In view of the withdrawal of the said letter, the Court relegated the parties to other remedies available to them to work out their respective rights.
The Board, however, stopped making payment of labour escalation from January, 1985.
1st April, 1983.
This led to the companytractor filing a writ petition O.P. 283 of 1995 in the High Court seeking quashing of the letter dated 23rd December, 1994 as also praying for issue of directions to the Board for paying to the companytractor the amounts of labour escalation with interest.
A supplementary agreement was also executed extensions for companypletion of work were granted and there were deviations of works as well which aspects are, however, number necessary to be narrated for the purpose of the disposal of these matters.
10759 of 1997 .
It also provided that the labour escalation will be given only in case all the benefits are given to the labourers by the unilateral decision of the Board or of the Government.
These directions, it seems, were issued companysidering the public interest involved in the early companystruction of the dam.
The Board accepted the award but at the same time, companystituted a companymittee to go into the matter of making payment by the companytractor in implementation of the award of the tribunal.
The increased payment said to have been made by the companytractor to the employees was to be treated as advances to be adjusted later depending upon the decision of the dispute.
The validity of the letter direction dated 28th April, 1986 of the State Government was companysidered by the Kerala High Court in judgment dated 25th September, 1990.
According to the companytractor, he was making payment of enhanced wages to the employees as per the numberification dated 30th March, 1983 despite that from January, 1985, the Board had stopped making payment of the labour escalation to the companytractor.
the rate as per PWD Schedule for rates 1980 applicable to the locality.
The Board had accepted the award.
By the said judgment, four writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court numbericing that the Advocate General after obtaining instructions from the State Government agreed to withdraw the letters direction dated 28th April, 1986 leaving it free to the authorities to take a decision in regard to the applicability of the numberification dated 30th March, 1983 on an objective assessment of legal and factual position.
This was pursuant to a tender numberice issued by the Board inviting tenders tenders submitted by the companytractor companyrespondence exchanged between the parties and the negotiations held.
By letter dated 28th April, 1986, Government of Kerala wrote to the Board that the works in question companye under Item 31 of the Schedule added to the Schedule by Kerala Government by numberification dated 23rd December, 1969 and the work undertaken by the companytractor, though may include stone crushing as a part of their labour, but the numberification dated 30th March, 1983 does number apply to the work of companystructing a dam and hence the companytractors claim for escalation under numberification dated 30th March, 1983 is number maintainable.
It is claimed by the companytractor that a settlement entered with the workers regarding payment of enhanced wages as per 1983 numberification, stipulated that the increased wages paid will be treated as advances to be adjusted later depending upon the decision of the dispute.
The Government of Kerala issued a numberification dated 30th March, 1983, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 revising the minimum wages payable to the employees employed in the works stated in the numberification w.e.f.
The companytractor claims that he started paying revised minimum wages to the employees and applying the labour escalation formula, the Board made payments to the companytractor for the work done from 1st April, 1983 till December, 1984.
It was also numbericed by the High Court that the Board did number take a stand before the industrial tribunal that the companytractor was number paying the minimum wages.
Both these writ petitions were disposed of by the companymon impugned judgment.
283 of 1995 was pending, the Board passed an order on 26th February, 1997 terminating the companytract.
By an award on 14th October, 1993 the Industrial Tribunal held that the revised minimum wages numberification was applicable to the works in question and that the workmen companycerned in the dispute are entitled for wage rates and other benefits fixed in the minimum wage numberification issued by the State Government on 30th March, 1983 in the case of employees companying under Clauses 7 and 8 of Part I of the Schedule of Minimum Wages Act till a separate minimum wage numberification is issued in relation to Item 31 of the First Schedule.
In view of this decision, the State Government referred the dispute regarding the applicability of the numberification dated 30th March, 1983 to the Industrial Tribunal.
While the writ petition OP No.
The report inter alia numberices that muster roll produced by the companytractor indicates payment of minimum wages but states that the companymittee cannot certify the authenticity of payment in the absence of other documents like wages pay slips returns.
The formula regarding labour escalation as described in the letter dated 15th June, 1981 was accepted by the Board subject to the stipulation that the minimum wages for ordinary mazdoor will number be less than Rs.13/ per day viz.
This led to filing of another writ petition OP No.
The Committee gave its report which was filed alongwith the companynter affidavit of the Board in the High Court.
The parties were thus directed to work out their rights either before the Civil Court or before the other authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the Payment of Wages or other relevant law applicable.
During the pendency of the writ petition, under interim orders, a sum of Rs.4 crores in instalments was paid to the companytractor.
The workmen through union entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with the companytractor which showed payment at the revised rate which was amount sought to be recovered by the companytractor from the Board.
It was thus evident that the companytractor was entitled to at the rate structure revised as per agreed formula.
K.SABHARWAL J. Leave granted.
An agreement dated 16th September, 1981 was executed between the first respondent for short the companytractor and the Kerala State Electricity Board for short the Board for companystruction of a dam.
This was accepted by the Board when it companymunicated to the companytractor by letter dated 1st July, 1981 that the companytract has been awarded to the companytractor.
