RAM KUMAR MISRA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

RAM KUMAR MISRA versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Ferries at Bhagalpur and Sultanganj are establishments within the meaning of Entry 27 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as defined through Sec. 2(6) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. Therefore, the Act and its notifications apply, and workmen are entitled to minimum wages as prescribed.

Parties
Petitioner: Ram Kumar Misra; Respondent: State of Bihar; Respondent: Respondent No. 5
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed
Legal Topics
Minimum Wages, Definition of Establishment, Employment in Ferries

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Kumar Misra

Petitioner

State of Bihar

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applies to employment in ferries plying across Ganges in Bihar
  2. 2 Whether Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries are 'establishments' under Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953

Ratio Decidendi

Ferries at Bhagalpur and Sultanganj are establishments within the meaning of Entry 27 of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as defined through Sec. 2(6) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. Therefore, the Act and its notifications apply, and workmen are entitled to minimum wages as prescribed.

Court Disposition

petition allowed

Orders

  • Labour Department of Bihar to inform the petitioner about appropriate authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for adjudicating claims for arrears of minimum wage.
  • Appropriate authority to invite workmen (or petitioner on their behalf) to file claims for arrears and to inquire and determine arrears after opportunity for hearing respondent No. 5.