Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1570 of 2003 ====================================================== Hira Lal, Son of Late Bishun Lal, Proprietor of M/s Hira Automobile (Petrol Pump) Bizawan Par P.S. Deepnagar, Town Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (General) and Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Patna Division, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Labour Superintendent, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. 4. The Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Inspector Minimum Wages Act, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. 5. Sheo Gope, Son of Nathun Gope, Resident of Village Bizawan Par, P.S. Deep Nagar, Town Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Laxmi Narayan Das, Advocate Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocate : For the Res. No. 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate 4 18-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 1.7.2002, passed by the respondent no. 2 under Section (3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Labour Enforcement Officer, Bihar made a complaint to the authority concerned claiming that the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages due to the respondent no. 5 from June, 1995 to May 1999. It is said that the respondent no. 5 was 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.1570 of 2003 (4) dt.18-04-2013 2 / 5 paid a sum of Rs. 800/- per month which was lesser than the government rate which amounted to Rs. 1600/- per month. The complaint was registered and notice issued to the petitioner. On hearing, the respondent no. 5, perusing his complaint and the evidence recorded in the case alongwith Ext. 3 which is the notice served on the opposite party, the matter was taken up for hearing. The Assistant Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the respondent no. 5 was entitled to receive Rs. 48,000/- as payment of wages and a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- by way of compensation. Three issues have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is firstly argued that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner did not get an opportunity to be heard before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The order impugned shows otherwise. It is recorded that notices were issued to the petitioner and that he did not appear despite the notice being served on him, therefore, this writ application cannot be allowed on the ground that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. It was next argued that the application under Section 20(2) of the Act was beyond the period of limitation. As per sub- section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the concerned person should 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.1570 of 2003 (4) dt.18-04-2013 3 / 5 present his complaint within a period of six months from the date on which the minimum wages became payable. There is a provision for condoning the delay. The facts in this case disclose that the petitioner was being paid his minimum wages and it was only in January, 1995 that his wages were reduced from Rs. 1600/- to Rs. 800/- per month, which state of affairs continued till May, 1999, when the respondent no. 5 complained to the concerned authority regarding non-payment of minimum wages. If it was a case of continuing dereliction of the petitioner by ignoring the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, this Court could conclude that there was a delay and that the application/complaint was hit by limitation under Section 20(2) of the Act. However, when there is a specific date/month mentioned, as in this case May, 1995 to January, 1999 this Court considers that it will be proper to conclude that the limitation should be counted from May, 1999 thus making the application within time in view of the fact that it was filed on 11th of August, 1999. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Minimum Wages Act would not be applicable in the facts of this case as there was already a part payment of wages and the petitioner cannot file an application under the Minimum Wages Act for payment of dues. Referring to the case of Manganese Ore 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.1570 of 2003 (4) dt.18-04-2013 4 / 5 (India) Ltd. vs. Chandi Lal Saha and others [AIR 1991 SC 520], counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefits given to a wage holder which are compensated by way of monetary value cannot be demanded under the Minimum Wages Act. In the case aforesaid the question before the Supreme Court was whether the monetary value of the grain supplied at concessional rate and the amount paid as attendance bonus can be included and counted in minimum wages payable to the employees under the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act. A notification had been issued under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to different categories of employees employed in Manganese Mines which was fixed as Rs. 240/- a day, the management under the agreement was paying the employees the attendance bonus and had supplied the grain at concessional rates. It is under these circumstances that the Supreme Court held that the attendance-bonus was an additional payment made to the workmen as a means of procuring their regular attendance with the ultimate object of increasing production. It also held that the bonus was in the nature of extra remuneration for regular attendance and it was not payable to all workmen at the time of joining of employment. Under such circumstances, the Court rejected the contention of the Labour Court that the management 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.1570 of 2003 (4) dt.18-04-2013 5 / 5 was liable to make payment of grains supplied at concessional rate and attendance bonus. The facts of the present case are apparently quite different to the facts of the case in Manganese ore (supra). The respondent no. 5 is not claiming any extra benefit apart from the minimum wages fixed by the State Government for the period in question. Considering all the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned. This writ application is dismissed. Sanjay/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)