Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 853 (JHR)

Jagdish Singh Raghubanshi v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-02

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2008
ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Two cases bearing M.W. No. 84 of 1994 and M.W. No. 86 of 1994 were filed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Superintendent, Ranchi before the Court of S.D.M., Ranchi against one Raju Singh alleging therein that the workers engaged for repairing/construction work of Quarters No. 28 in Bariatu Housing Colony for the period from 4.4.1993 to 11.6.1993 were not paid their minimum wages and both the cases were allowed by respondent No. 4 S.D.M., Ranchi and thereupon a certificate case bearing C.C. No. 2 of 1996-97 was filed before the Certificate Officer, Ranchi for recovery of the amount awarded against said Raju Singh but when the warrant of arrest was issued in the said certificate proceeding in the name of the petitioners, they preferred a writ application before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 2523 of 2000(R) challenging the order of the S.D.M., Ranchi and also initiation of the certificate proceeding on the ground that the award has been made against Raju Singh but in the certificate proceeding warrant of arrest has been issued against them. 2. In course of hearing, stand was taken by the respondents that it is the petitioner No. 1 who is also known as Raju Singh. However, this Court set aside the order passed in the minimum wages proceeding and also in the certificate proceeding, as the order had been passed without hearing the petitioners. Thereupon respondent No. 2-Labour Superintendent, Ranchi again filed ten cases of minimum wages before the S.D.M., Ranchi against the petitioners but all those cases were dismissed by S.D.M., Ranchi. 3. Being aggrieved with that order, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority who set aside the order passed by the S.D.M., Ranchi and remanded the case back for deciding the same afresh. Thereafter, learned S.D.M., Ranchi passed the order dated 20.9.2006 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioners were directed to pay difference of wages which comes to Rs. 13,970/- and also ten times compensation over the amount awarded; which in total comes to Rs. 1,53,670/-. When the appeal was preferred against that order, contained in Annexure-3, it was rejected by the Appellate Court vide order dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure-4). 4. Being aggrieved with the orders, as contained in Annexures-3 and 4, this writ application was filed praying therein to set aside both the orders. 5. 1,53,670/-. When the appeal was preferred against that order, contained in Annexure-3, it was rejected by the Appellate Court vide order dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure-4). 4. Being aggrieved with the orders, as contained in Annexures-3 and 4, this writ application was filed praying therein to set aside both the orders. 5. While the matter was pending certificate proceeding for realizing the amount, which was awarded against the petitioners, was initiated vide C.C. No. 2 of 1996-97. In the said proceedings the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act but that was also rejected and, therefore, the petitioners preferred a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was admitted on deposition Rs. 61,468 and consequently further proceeding of certificate case was stayed but the other day, the petitioners came to know that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi passed an order on 29.11.2007 whereby the revision application was dismissed and under that situation, an application for amendment bearing I.A. No. 3452 of 2007 was filed whereby the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-respondent No. 6 was also sought to be challenged. 6. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case wherein it has been stated that there has been absolutely no illegality in the order passed either by the S.D.M., Ranchi or by the Appellate Authority or even by the Revisional Court and as such those orders need no interference by this Court. 7. 6. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents in this case wherein it has been stated that there has been absolutely no illegality in the order passed either by the S.D.M., Ranchi or by the Appellate Authority or even by the Revisional Court and as such those orders need no interference by this Court. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the house in question belonged to Bihar State Housing Board and the Board had sold the said house to Colonel Jagdish Chandra vide registered sale-deed No. 6616 dated 3.8.1993 and said Colonel Jagdish Chandra, in turn, sold the house to the wife of petitioner No. 1 vide sale-deed No. 685 dated 4.8.1993 and thereupon the petitioners came in possession of the house and as such the question of carrying out repairing/construction work by the petitioners for the period from 4.4.1993 to 11.6.1993 never arises, still the order has been passed on the premise that since the petitioners have taken the said premises from the original allottee, they are entitled to pay the amount which approach of the Authorities is quite erroneous and moreover the case lodged by the respondent No. 2 before the S.D.M., Ranchi is hopelessly barred and on these grounds, all the orders which were sought to be quashed are illegal, unconstitutional and unjustified. 8. Learned Counsel further submits that he will not be challenging the propriety or illegality of the order impugned if the Court considers that the deposit made by the petitioners of Rs. 61,468/- as against difference of minimum wages which comes to Rs. 13,970/- is quite adequate towards the award given for the difference of minimum wages and compensation. 9. In view of the submissions and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the end of justice would be met if the amount of Rs. 61468/- deposited by the petitioners is treated to be adequate amounts towards award awarded on account of difference of minimum wages (Rs. 13,970/-) and also the compensation. 10. Accordingly, the orders passed by the S.D.M., Ranchi in M.W. Case No. 5 to 14 of 2001 dated 20.9.2006 and also by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal 01 R-15/2006-07 dated 27.6.2007 are hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners would be liable to pay Rs. 61,468/- which they have already deposited. 11. 10. Accordingly, the orders passed by the S.D.M., Ranchi in M.W. Case No. 5 to 14 of 2001 dated 20.9.2006 and also by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal 01 R-15/2006-07 dated 27.6.2007 are hereby modified to the extent that the petitioners would be liable to pay Rs. 61,468/- which they have already deposited. 11. Consequently, entire proceeding of certificate case bearing C.C. No. 2 of 1996-97 is quashed. 12. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned orders, as contained in An-nexures-3 and 4, this writ application is partly allowed. Application partly allowed.