In Brief
Steel Authority of India engaged contract labourers in limestone mines after a 1993 prohibition notification under the Contract Labour Act. The workers later claimed entitlement to wages of regular SAIL employees under the national steel agreement. The Supreme Court held that the Minimum Wages Act's jurisdiction under Section 20(1) covers only wage-rate disputes, not claims for parity with regular employees. The Act does not automatically convert contract labourers into regular employees. Since the agreed minimum wage (Rs. 11.65 per day above statutory minimum) had been paid, there was no rate dispute warranting authority intervention. The Court set aside orders granting arrears and compensation, emphasizing that equal-pay claims must be resolved through other statutory mechanisms, not the Minimum Wages Act framework.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation": "Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United Labour Union and Others", "case_name": "Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union", "cited_year": "", "paragraph": "4", "treatment": "overruled", "treatment_by": "reported", "treatment_quote": "The aforesaid judgment of this Court was subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others."}, {"raw_citation": "Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others", "case_name": "Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers", "cited_year": "", "paragraph": "4, 5, 24", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others"}, {"raw_citation": "Town Municipal Council, Athani Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli and Others, Etc.", "case_name": "Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli", "cited_year": "", "paragraph": "17, 33", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others", "case_name": "BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar v. Union of India", "cited_year": "", "paragraph": "17, 20, 43", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Others (supra) may not be of any assistance in the facts of the instant case for the reason that it was a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the workers union seeking declaration from this Court for abolition of contract labour and be treated as direct employees of the establishment and entitled to equal pay as workmen of the BHEL but that being a matter of enquiry by the competent authority, their petition came to be dismissed with the direction to the Union of India to examine their grievance in accordance with law."}, {"raw_citation": "Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and Ors.", "case_name": "Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour", "cited_year": "", "paragraph": "17, 37", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.