Civil court jurisdiction survives where wage statute gives no express bar, and sub-normal workers fall outside ordinary minimum wage coverage.

Civil court jurisdiction under the Minimum Wages Act was held not to be excluded because Section 24 barred only specified suits for wage recovery and the statutory scheme did not expressly or necessarily bar an employer's challenge to the applicability of a wage notification. Sub-normal tea garden workers known as Letter a challans were also held not to fall within "ordinary unskilled labour" for whom full minimum wages were fixed, since they could not work a normal day because of incapacity, age, infirmity or similar conditions. The notification and proviso to Section 15 were applied to deny full minimum wages in those circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suits was barred by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; (ii) whether sub-normal tea garden workers known as Letter a challans were entitled to full minimum wages as ordinary unskilled labour.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suits was barred by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act was examined, including the provisions for fixation of minimum wages, the authority's power to decide claims under Section 20, the finality attached to its directions, and the express bar created by Section 24 for certain suits. The Act, however, contained no provision for appeal or revision against a direction under Section 20(3), and the authority had acted in a summary manner without proper inquiry. The bar under Section 24 was confined to suits for recovery of wages in specified situations and did not extend to an employer's suit challenging the applicability of the notification to a class of workers. In the circumstances, the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction could not be inferred.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

Issue (ii): Whether sub-normal tea garden workers known as Letter a challans were entitled to full minimum wages as ordinary unskilled labour.

Analysis: The notification applied to ordinary unskilled labour, and the word "ordinary" was treated as meaning labour capable of working in the normal way for the prescribed working day. The evidence showed that Letter a challans were unable to work the full working day because of incapacity, old age, infirmity or similar physical condition, and were not ordinary unskilled labour within the notification. Their case also fell within the proviso to Section 15, because the failure to work the full day was due to their unwillingness or inability to work, rather than any omission by the employer to provide work.

Conclusion: The Letter a challans were not entitled to full minimum wages without performing a normal day's task or working the prescribed hours.

Final Conclusion: The suits were maintainable, the impugned orders were not binding, and the workers in question could not claim full minimum wages as ordinary unskilled labour; the appellants were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A special statute will not oust civil court jurisdiction unless such exclusion is express or necessarily implied from the statutory scheme, and a class of workers outside the scope of a wage-fixing notification cannot be compelled to receive the minimum wages fixed for ordinary labour.

---