Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 549 (RAJ)

Lad Bai v. The Minimum Wages Authority

2008-02-21

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed to pay her regular pay-scale which is payable to IVth Class employee alongwith all consequential benefits including arrears from 1.8.1992 as also to regularise her services with benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that she was employed in the office of non-petitioner No.2 as a Class IVth Servant on a fixed pay of Rs. 300/- p.m., and her employment was a scheduled one within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short the Act of 1948'). The petitioner submitted a claim petition in which she stated that as per the minimum wages, she is entitled to a Rs. 572/- p.m. The non-petitioned filed reply to the claim petition stating therein that neither she is employed in any schedule employment nor she is an employee within the meaning of the Act and respondent No.2 used to take work from her only half an hour in the morning and payment of Rs. 10/- per day was to be made by F.V.C. bills. 3. The Presiding Officer, Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, after hearing both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, dismissed the claim application of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has not produced any appointment letter in evidence with regard to the fact that she was employed in the office of respondent No. 2 for doing the work whole day. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment, the petitioner preferred the present petition before this Court. 5. In rebuttal the respondents filed a detailed reply and controverted the, facts which the petitioner mentioned in his petition. 6. In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : 2003(3) SCC 524 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under : "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error. apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisor power. under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisor power. under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the petitioner should be paid minimum wages as per the rules and regulations but a bare perusal of the facts of the above case clearly reveal that neither the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.2 as a regular employee nor she had produced any appointment order before the Payment of Wages Authority. 9. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. In an application for a writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record on when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in the exercise of its Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 10. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 10. In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the award passed by the labour court. The finding of the labour court is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the award. In my view the writ petition (sic) does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The Judgment dated 18.10.2004 passed by Presiding officer, Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Sawai Madhopur is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******