Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 127 (ALL)

Lark Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Prescribed Authority, Minimum Wages Act, Bulandshahar

2004-01-27

RAKESH TIWARI

body2004
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of medicine having its factory at A-105/2, Okhla Industrial Area, phase-II, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 was employed with the petitioners as Medical representative and was deputed to look after the area of Bulandshahar. The main work of respondent No. 2 was to promote the sale in bulandshahar area. However, his work had never been satisfactory and there had been several complaints against him. On December 28, 1996 respondent No. 2 filed an application under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the authority under the Minimum Wages act/assistant Labour Commissioner, bulandshahar which was registered as M. W. A. Case No. 7/1997. Along with the aforesaid application, the respondent No. 2 also moved an application for condoning the delay in filing the application. In the application respondent no. 2 has stated that his salary was Rs. 1000/-per month whereas his salary ought to have, been Rs. 1500/- per month and as such, the petitioner has made illegal deduction of Rs. 500/- per month. In the application respondent no. 2 has also mentioned about the C. B. Case no. 2 of 1996, which was then pending. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed its objection to the delay condonation application and also filed their preliminary objection to the application under the minimum Wages Act. On May 16, 1997 respondent No. 1 heard the application on delay: condonation and passed the following order: "vernacular matter omitted. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the arguments on preliminary objections were heard on July 30 1997 and the order was reserved which was delivered subsequently, but respondent No. 1 has put the date of July 30, 1997. By order dated July 30, 1997 respondent No. 1 has condoned the delay as well as over ruled the preliminary objection and has fixed the next date in the case. It is submitted that petitioners factory and its office are situated within territorial jurisdiction of the State of Delhi. The appointment was made at Delhi and salary was also paid from Delhi and as such the jurisdiction lies within the State of Delhi only. No cause of action arose in State of U. P. The jurisdiction, if any, lies within the State of Delhi. The appointment was made at Delhi and salary was also paid from Delhi and as such the jurisdiction lies within the State of Delhi only. No cause of action arose in State of U. P. The jurisdiction, if any, lies within the State of Delhi. ( 4 ) THE only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated july 30, 1997 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. In the impugned order the prescribed Authority has held that the workplace of the petitioner was at bulandshahar and was paid wages at bulandshahar. The Prescribed Authority has further held that the wages are notified under the Minimum Wages Act and that respondent no. 2 is entitled for wages notified under the said Act. ( 5 ) THE impugned order is an interim order. No interim order was granted to the petitioner at the time of admission. The writ petition appears to have become infructuous, as the case under the Minimum Wages Act must have been decided by now. The case has been taken up in the revised list. None has appeared to press this petition. The petition has no force. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. . .