Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 166 (ALL)

COOP CANE DEVELOPMENT v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-01-18

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the judgment & order dated 23.9.1999, passed by Asst. Labour Commissioner, Faizabad ( opposite party No. 2) in Case No. M.W. 230 of 1999, under Section 20 (2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 thereby allowing the claim of opposite party No. 4 for payment of wages amounting to Rs. 17,048.97, for the period from 1.12.1996 to 30.11.1997, compensation of Rs. 34,097.56 i.e. two times of the amount claimed and Rs. 300/- as cost of the proceedings, total Rs. 51,446.34. 3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that Ganga Ram, the opposite party No. 4 was engaged as a part-time Chowkidar at Mini Fertilizer Godown of the petitioner-society at Aseni, district Barabanki on fixed wages of Rs. 50/- per month w.e.f. February, 1985 which he was being paid from time to time. The engagement of opposite party No. 4 came to an end on 30.11.1997 on account of closure of business of petitioner-society which was approved by the District Cane Officer, Barabanki/Chairman, District Cane Service Authority, Barabanki vide letter dated 13.12.1997 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition). It is further submitted that on 10.12.1997 the Labaour Inspector, Minimum Wages Act, Barabanki inspected the office of petitioner and issued inspection note (Annexure 3) with his remarks to the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure 4) intimated opposite party No. 3 that the wages of opposite party No. 4 upto 24.11.1997 have been paid to him on 16.12.1997. 4. Further submission is that the Labour Inspector (opposite party No. 3) moved an application to the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Faizabad (opposite party No. 2) on 14.9.1998 for payment of difference of minimum wages for the period from 1.12.1996 to 30.11.1997, amounting to Rs. 17,049.00 and compensation of Rs. 1,70,490.00 i.e. ten times of the amount under Section 20 (3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said application was registered as Case No. M.W. 230 of 1999. The opposite party No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner on 20.3.1999 thereby fixing date 30.3.1999 for appearance of petitioner. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 31.3.1999 i.e. after expiry of the date fixed for appearance of petitioner by the opposite party No. 2. The said application was registered as Case No. M.W. 230 of 1999. The opposite party No. 2 issued notice to the petitioner on 20.3.1999 thereby fixing date 30.3.1999 for appearance of petitioner. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 31.3.1999 i.e. after expiry of the date fixed for appearance of petitioner by the opposite party No. 2. The parokar of petitioner-society visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and apprised him that notice was not served in time but no positive response was given to him. The petitioner received no other notice except dated 20.3.1999, issued in respect of Case No. MW 230 of 1999. On 30.3.1999, the office of the petitioner-society received the judgment dated 23.9.1999, passed by opposite party No. 2 in a printed form by which petitioner has been directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 51,446.34 within fifteen days for being paid to the opposite party No. 4. 5. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that the opposite party No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 23.9.1999 in a mechanical manner as he without assigning any reason imposed compensation of Rs. 34,097.56 which is double to the principal amount. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The fact is that the entire dues of opposite party No. 4 have already been paid to him on 16.12.1997 and this fact was intimated to the Labour Inspector vide letter dated19.12.1997 (Annexure 4). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties argued that the judgment & order passed by opposite party No. 2 is a well-reasoned and speaking order and the notice was sent to the petitioner but he deliberately did not appear before the opposite party No. 2. He further argued that the petitioner has also not paid arrears of difference of wages as he was being paid @ 50/- per day. Learned counsel also submitted that despite notice petitioner has not appeared before the opposite party No. 2. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that despite notice petitioner has not appeared before the opposite party No. 2. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 9. From perusal of the Notice/Summon dated 20.3.1999 (Annexure 6) it reveals that the said notice was received in the office of petitioner on 31.3.1999 i.e. after expiry of the date fixed i.e. on 30.3.1999. It appears that some parokar of the petitioner-office approached the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad Region, Faizabad but he was not given any information. 10. However, in reply to the notice, the petitioner sent a letter to the Labour Inspector mentioning therein that the opposite party No. 4 has been paid his entire dues on 16.12.1997. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 while passing the order dated 23.9.1999, has not taken into consideration the said fact. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the notice was served upon the petitioner after expiry of date fixed for appearance of petitioner. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 23.9.1999, passed by the opposite party No. 2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As the matter relates to payment of difference of wages which is required to be paid by the petitioner, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the opposite party No. 2 for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 23.9.1999, passed by Asst. Labour Commissioner, Faizabad ( opposite party No. 2) in Case No. M.W. 230 of 1999, under Section 20 (2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party No. 2 to decide Case No,. M.W. No. 230 of 1999 afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 13. Both the parties are directed to appear before opposite party No. 2 on 15.2.2012. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party No. 2 to decide Case No,. M.W. No. 230 of 1999 afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 13. Both the parties are directed to appear before opposite party No. 2 on 15.2.2012. The opposite party No. 2 will decide the case (MW 230 of 1999) expeditiously in accordance with law, say, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ——————