Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 533 (JHR)

Ramlal Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-02-21

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. -learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, is present. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal No. 1/10 and 2/10, which had overturned the order passed by the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in M.W. Case No. 6/09 and 7/09. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were employees of the respondent no. 2 and were working as masons. It has been claimed that respondent no. 2 had paid the amount less than the amount prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act and petitioners have claimed less payments for the period 1.5.2008 to 31.7.2008, for which M.W. Case No. 6 4. The respondent no. 2 has denied the claim of the petitioners and has stated that the petitioners were never the employees of respondent no. 2 and therefore no relationship of employer and employee were existing between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2. It is the further case of the respondent no. 2 that the attendance register and wage register were produced, in which the names of the petitioners did not figure and hence the petitioners could not have claimed difference of wages. 5. While considering the application prescribed under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act preferred by the petitioners the delay in filing the claim application was condoned and notice was issued to the respondent no. 2. After appearance of respondent no. 2 and on the basis of the pleadings issues were framed, which are as follows:- (i) Is the petition under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act maintainable? (ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief? 6. The learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi vide order dated 21.12.2009 based on the fact that the attendance register and wage register were not verified by the Labour Enforcement officer rejected the claim of respondent no. 2 and allowed the application preferred by the petitioners while holding that the petitioners are entitled to get the due wages for the period concerned as also compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,968/-. The respondent no. 2 and allowed the application preferred by the petitioners while holding that the petitioners are entitled to get the due wages for the period concerned as also compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,968/-. The respondent no. 2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi had preferred an appeal in terms of section 20(6) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 being M.W Appeal No. l/l0 and M.W. Appeal No. 2/10. In terms of the order dated 14.12.2011, the order passed by the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi was set aside and the said order has been assailed by the petitioner as could be derived from the averments made in the writ application to the effect that the learned appellate court had accepted the contention of respondent no. 2 with respect to non-mentioning of the names of the petitioners in the attendance register as well as in the wage register. 7. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that there are vital discrepancies in the claim made by the petitioners as the petitioners could not prove through any documentary evidence that they were either employed in the respondent no. 2 or through a contractor and the onus was always upon the petitioners to prove their case. 8. It appears that during evidence both the petitioners have stated that they were employed by one Nakul Karmali, who had received an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent no. 2, which were distributed amongst the workers. It has been admitted by both the petitioners that they were not in possession of any document regarding the fact that Nakul Karmali was engaged by the respondent no. 2 and that amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the respondent no. 2 to Nakul Karmali. Infact, Nakul Karmali had also not been examined and therefore the claim of the petitioners of they being employed through Nakul Karmali in respondent no. 2, therefore is totally negated in view of the aforesaid facts. 9. Learned appellate court was correct in coming to a conclusion that the learned Labour Court had committed an error of law while disbelieving the attendance register and the wage register as the possibility of verification of the registers arises only when an inspection is made by the Labour Enforcement officer. 9. Learned appellate court was correct in coming to a conclusion that the learned Labour Court had committed an error of law while disbelieving the attendance register and the wage register as the possibility of verification of the registers arises only when an inspection is made by the Labour Enforcement officer. The said registers do not contain the name of the petitioners and even if it is assumed that the attendance register and wage register is a concocted document even in such circumstances the case of the petitioners remained unproved as nothing has been brought on record to substantiate their contention and since the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi has not at all considered these aspects of the matter, the said order was rightly set aside by the learned appellate court. 10. There being no reasons to disagree with the impugned order dated 14.12.2011, passed in M.W Appeal No.1/10 and M.W. Appeal No. 2/10 by the learned Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi, this writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.