Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 392 (JHR)

Hari Lal v. Jagdish Giri

2008-04-01

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for stay of the proceeding, whereby the petitioner has been forced to pay a sum of Rs. 92,092/-. 2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the said impugned order dated 26.4.1996 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barhi, District - Hazaribagh in M.W. Case No. 2 of 1994, which was upheld by the Additional Collector in M.W. Appeal No. 3 of 1996 dated 22.11.1999. The petitioner has assailed the said impugned orders mainly on the ground that the authorities had no jurisdiction and the proceeding in which the order was passed is time barred. It has been stated that though the said orders are illegal and without jurisdiction, still the respondents are proceeding to recover the said amount during pendency of the writ petition. 3. This interlocutory application has been contested by the respondents. It has been stated, inter alia, that the Sub-divisional Magistrate is an authority under the Minimum Wages Act and the order has been passed well within his competence and the same is sound and legal. 4. Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that perversity of the impugned orders is apparent from the very documents of the respondents as in the notice (An-nexure-2), whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why direction should not be given to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,250/- as arrears of wages and ten times compensation i.e. Rs. 22,500/-whereas contrary to the said notice, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barhi, District-Hazaribagh by its order dated 17.5.1996 has given direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 92,092/-. 5. It has been submitted that at any rate order directing the petitioner to pay any amount over and above the amount mentioned in the notice is wholly without jurisdiction as the petitioner was not given opportunity to explain against the said additional amount, which has now been directed to be paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the application was entertained beyond the period of limitation and the order has been passed without application of mind. 6. Mrs. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the application was entertained beyond the period of limitation and the order has been passed without application of mind. 6. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned S.C. III, on the other hand, submitted that though the notice was given mentioning the amount, the same was not the final order. The petitioner, after filing the show cause, did not subsequently appear. From the facts and evidences brought on record before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, he found the arrears of wages Rs. 8,372/-. After adding ten times compensation of Rs. 83,720/-, the total amount payable by the petitioner comes at Rs. 92,092/-. There is, thus, no illegality or perversity in the order and the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount as has been determined by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, which was also upheld by the appellate authority. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. 8. The petitioner’s main contention is that notice was issued to him(Annexure-2) clearly mentioning that a sum of Rs. 2,250/- is due against the petitioner, ten times compensation was assessed on that amount and the petitioner was asked to pay the amount of Rs. 24,750/-. Though the petitioner has not admitted the liability, it has been submitted that in any view order directing payment of the sum, beyond the amount mentioned in the notice, is not payable. The petitioner, however, has admitted that he has not deposited even the amount mentioned in the notice. 9. Without going into the rival contention regarding the merit of the case this interlocutory application is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 24,750/- within a period of four weeks’, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for realization of the amount mentioned in the impugned orders, until further order. If the said amount is deposited by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to collect the said amount on furnishing proper security to the satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barhi, Distriet-Hazaribagh.