REBORN CASTLE CLEANING PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
2018-01-25
DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, SHEKHAR B.SARAF
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : In re: C.A.N. 10098 of 2017 1. This is an application for staying the operation of the final order impugned to this appeal passed in connection with the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioners. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that a notice dated February 17, 2017 issued by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was under challenge in the writ application. 3. It is the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant Company, namely, M/s. Reborn Castle Cleaning Private Limited was engaged by the Reliance Webstores Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of cleaning and sweeping of different stores run by the above Company at different places within the district of Burdwan. The appellant no.1 was a contractor appointed under the Contract Labour(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 under whom several skilled and unskilled labours were engaged for doing such cleaning and sweeping work and for the purpose of obtaining the license under the above Act, the principle employer, namely, Reliance Webstore Ltd. certified under Form V that they have engaged the appellant as a Contractor in their establishment. According to the appellants, the notice issued by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is without any legal basis and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Assansol had no jurisdiction to issue the above notice in relation to the claim application bearing no. MW-63 of 2009. 4. The learned Single Bench was not inclined to accept the above submissions of the appellants and dismissed the writ application. Hence, this appeal. 5. After considering the provisions of Clause (ii) of Sub-Section (b) of Section 2, we find that “Appropriate Government” means the State Government in relation to the Scheduled employment not covered by Clause (i) of sub-section (b) of Section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It is not in dispute that the appellant Company does not come under Clause (i) of sub-section (b) of Section 2 of the above Act. Therefore, the State Government was the appropriate authority to deal with the matters in the instant case arising out of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 6.
It is not in dispute that the appellant Company does not come under Clause (i) of sub-section (b) of Section 2 of the above Act. Therefore, the State Government was the appropriate authority to deal with the matters in the instant case arising out of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 6. Upon further consideration of the provisions of Section 19, we find that the appropriate government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purpose of the above Act and define the local limits within which they shall exercise their functions. 7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Government that no Inspector under Section 19 of the above Act has yet been appointed. 8. The above submission has not been disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India. 9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid admitted facts and circumstances of this case, the notice impugned to the writ application was issued without jurisdiction by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Assansol had no authority to issue the notice in respect of the establishment falling within the jurisdiction of the State Government. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order requires our interference. The notice dated February 17, 2017 impugned to the writ application as also the final order dated September 7, 2017 passed in the writ application are quashed and set aside. 11. Since nothing remains to be decided further in connection with the appeal, the appeal is treated as on day’s list, and the appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly. 12. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.