Hari Singh vs Authority under Minimum Wages Act and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 15.5.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Sirsa, directing the petitioner to pay the wages amounting to Rs. 5,900/- to respondents No. 2 and 3 within a month, failing which with equal amount of compensation, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amount of wages was assessed at Rs. 5,900/- and the respondent authorities under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (''the Act'' for short), has illegally directed the petitioner to pay the abovesaid amount to respondents No. 2 and 3. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing of the present writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is a case wherein no interference is called for. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant observations made by the authorities under the Act, in the impugned order and the same read as under:-

The respondent has admitted the employment of respondent No. 2 only for 3-4 days and in his written statement admitted that he has paid the wages of the applicant on the same day as per weight of the work done on that day. In para No. 1 of his reply, he admitted that nothing remained unpaid on the day she worked and she has been paid in cash in the evening. On the other hand, in his statement and the evidence of RW-2 clearly reflect that a television was given in lieu of her wages. The counsel for the applicants argued that both the applicants have worked as agriculture labour and the rate or labor was fixed per k.g. The normal rate of plucking of cotton flowers is Rs. 7/- per k.g. And both the applicants have plucked 7 quintals of total flowers. They have also collected cotton Tindas worth Rs. 1000/-. In this way, the applicants are entitled for Rs. 4900/- + Rs. 1000/-. the counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent NO. 1 has never worked with the respondent but he could not rebut the tota, quantity of cotton flowers or the collection of Tindas.

The respondent and the witness produced on his behalf have admitted to pay in cash also to the applicant No. 2 but they differ in the amount of cash given to her. The statements of the applicants admitted to take a television from the respondent but the same was returned to him after 5-7 days. The respondent in his reply admitted to pay the wages on the same day in evening but contrary to this he also admitted to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- in the hospital. Both the contentions are differed each other. The respondent has also admitted to give a television to the applicants in lieu of her wages but the applicant admitted to receive this television which has been returned to the respondent back after 5-7 days.

In view of the discussion above, the respondent could not prove his contention and, therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the applicants are entitled to the amount of wages Rs. 5900/-. The respondent is hereby directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5900/- (Rs. Five thousand nine hundred only) in this Court within 30 days failing which he shall be liable to pay the same alongwith equal amount of compensation i.e. 5900/-.

A bare reading of the above said observations made by respondent No. 1 shows that the petitioner had admitted his liability. It is also not in dispute that the respondents worked with the petitioner. Once they were not paid their wages, they had to approach the authorities under the Act, demanding their wages. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the wages to respondents No. 2 and 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the order apparent on record of the case, so as to persuade this Court to take a contrary view than the one taken by respondents No 1, while passing the impugned order.

Further, the petitioner has admitted his liability before respondent No. 1 and the authority under the Act committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,900/- towards wages to respondents No. 2 and 3 within a month, failing which with equal amount of compensation. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned order. The impugned order has not been found to be suffering from any patent illegality or perversity. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the authorities under the Act committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.