Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1274 (JHR)

S. K. Das v. State of Jharkhand

2006-10-31

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. 2. In spite of service of notice on respondent No. 5, she has not chosen to appear. 3. Petitioner has challenged the entire proceeding of the Minimum Wages Case No. 1 of 2001, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koderma, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and is vexatious. 4. Mr. R.A. Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No. 5 filed the complaint in question that her husband was employed from 1968 to 15.5.2001, till he died, as compounder with the petitioner but he was paid ten rupees less per day under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore she claimed a sum of Rs. 2,51,440 x 20 i.e., 50, 28, 800/-. 5. Petitioner filed an application for hearing on preliminary question of jurisdiction but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded to hear the matter on merits. He filed a revision being Cr. Revision No. 78 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge, Koderma, which was dismissed on the ground that the revision was not maintainable. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out to Annexure- 6, which is a letter written by respondent No.5 to the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on 6.6.2001 saying that the petitioner did not pay any remuneration to her husband and he earned independently as a compounder. In the circumstances, he submitted that there was no employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and the husband of respondent No. 5. He further submitted that the husband of respondent No. 5 never raised any dispute for 33 years but it is surprising that after his death, respondent No. 5 raised the present claim for more than Rs. 50 lacs without any basis, which is wholly vexatious and highly belated. He further submitted that respondent No. 5 raised dispute before the Labour Superintendent, Koderma through union but ultimately she withdrew the case and thereafter filed the present case under Minimum Wages Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the State could not dispute that the claim was highly belated and the stand of respondent No. 5 before the Deputy Commissioner and in this proceeding was absolutely contradictory. 8. I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the claim of respondent No. 5 is highly belated, contradictory and vexatious. 9. 7. Learned Counsel for the State could not dispute that the claim was highly belated and the stand of respondent No. 5 before the Deputy Commissioner and in this proceeding was absolutely contradictory. 8. I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the claim of respondent No. 5 is highly belated, contradictory and vexatious. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the Minimum Wages Case No. 1/2001, pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koderma, is quashed. However, no costs. Petition allowed.