R.S. Griwal and Co. vs The Government of India and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna passed in case No. M.W. Claim (62)/99, whereby the claim made u/s 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the concerned workmen has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the minimum wages, which comes to the tune of Rs. 3,00,441.00 with one time compensation totaling Rs. 6,00,882.00. The said claim case was initiated on the basis of the application filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna against the petitioner,

The case is that the applicant inspected the establishment of the opposite party (writ petitioner) and found that the workers were paid less than the minimum rates of wages. The applicant calculated the said claim and found on inspection of the establishment that no record or register was being maintained by the establishment at the work site. He recorded the statement of the workers then engaged. On the basis of the statement of the workers engaged in the establishment, the applicant found that the management was not paying the minimum rates of wages as fixed by the Government for respective category of workmen. He also found that all the 51 workmen for whom claim application was filed were engaged by the management in their establishment. On the basis of the finding on inspection, interrogation and the statement of the workmen, a copy was submitted to the management and inspection report-cum-show cause notice was also given to them by registered post. However, the claim amount was not paid. The applicant thereafter filed the claim under Sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioner was noticed by the concerned authority where they appeared and filed their objection stating, inter alia, that the workmen are the piece rated and they are being paid much more than minimum rates of wages. The payments were made in presence of the representative of the principal employer fortnightly. The wage slips are also given to the workers.

Since the writ petitioner did not accept the claim, they were directed to produce evidence, including that of the workmen by their examination. They were also directed to produce record in support of the objection. However, the petitioner did not produce any evidence, workmen for examination or any record or document.

The writ petitioner did not also attend the hearing, fixed on 15th November, 2000. The concerned authority considered the claim on the basis of the materials on record and concluded the case directing the opposite party to deposit the claim amount with one time compensation.

The said order of the authority has been challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that there was no verification of the workmen and their claim and that the concerned authority relied on the statement made by the applicant without any cogent basis. It has been submitted that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner to bring the evidences and represent their case. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is the sub-contractor. Payments were made more than the rate of minimum wages, in presence of the representative of the principal employer. The claim made by the concerned workmen is wholly frivolous and baseless. The list of the workmen has also not been furnished and the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without even identifying the concerned workmen.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the claim case arose out of the representation of the Union. It is apparent from Annexure-8, annexed by the petitioner, that the list of the workers engaged by the petitioner-contractor was attached to that. The petitioner had filed their objection (Annexure-3). In the said objection, the petitioner had not disputed the identity of the workers rather without disputing their identity, the petitioner stated that they are the piece rated workmen and they earned more than the rate of minimum wages. The payments were made in presence of the representative of the principal employer. It has been further submitted that the statement given by the workers were all incorrect.

Learned Counsel for the workmen-respondent further submitted that the authority, on the basis of the record, has found that the objection of the writ petitioner is wholly without any basis and the same could not be substantiated. It has been submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) made an enquiry on the spot, interrogated the workers and took their statement and on that basis came to the conclusion that the concerned workers were paid less than the minimum rates of wages prescribed under law.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents and considered the facts and materials on record.

Annexure-3 is the reply of the writ petitioner before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act in the said Claim Case (62)/99. On going through the said reply, I find that the writ petitioner has not disputed the identity of the workmen on whose behalf the claim was made. The main stand taken by the: petitioner was that the workers are piece rated workmen and they earned more than the minimum wages and that the payments were being made in presence of the representative of the principal employer. The ground taken by the petitioner in this writ petition that identity of the workmen has not been proved by the applicant is misconceived. Since the petitioner had not disputed the identity or the principal employer of the workmen on whose behalf the claim was made, there was no occasion for determination of the identity of number. It is evident from the record that the names and addresses of the workers were furnished with the application by which the grievance of nonpayment of the minimum wages was made. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on the basis thereof, inspected the establishment of the petitioner on 13th February, 1999 along with R.L. Saha, Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Dehri-on-Sone. He did not find any register or record required to be maintained by the employer at the work site. The Regional Labour Commissioner thereafter interrogated the workmen at the site and recorded their statement. On the basis of the said interrogation, he found that the concerned workers were paid less than the minimum rates of wages as prescribed by the Government for the respective category of workmen. He found all the 51 workmen on whose behalf the claim was made, engaged by the petitioner in their establishment. On the basis thereof, the said Regional Labour Commissioner Issued inspection report-cum-show cause to the petitioner. He also directed to pay the minimum wages. When the direction was not compiled with the preferred the claim before the authority Minimum Wages Act, 1948 being M.W. Claim Case (62)/99. The said authority in course of hearing afforded proper opportunity to the petitioner to prove their objection. They were given opportunity to bring and examine the workmen and/or produce the document to show that the workmen were paid more than the prescribed minimum wages, but the writ petitioner failed to produce any workmen. They also did not produce any document pr record in support of their objection. They also avoided their presence on the date fixed for hearing i.e. 15th November, 2000.

The concerned authority on due consideration of the facts and the materials on record directed the opposite party to deposit the claim amount with one time compensation. I find nothing on record to substantiate the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner or that there is arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order.

There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.