M/s.Yak Granite Industries Private Limited, Chembaram Bakam, Madras v. The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act

Order

Seeking to declare the order of the 1st respondent in M.W.Case No.72 of 1990 dated 16.10.1990 and the consequential proceedings dated

18.7.1991 as illegal and without jurisdiction, the present writ petition is filed.

The first respondent, by order dated 16.10.1990, directed the petitioners herein to pay an amount of Rs.13,59,150/- towards less paid wages and imposed a fine of Rs.67,45,750/- holding that petitioners 1 to 3 herein had deliberately avoided payment of the minimum wages due to the respondent-workmen under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 4.1.1989. Again, vide proceedings dated 18.7.1991, the 1st respondent directed recovery proceedings to be initiated, through the Court of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, realization of the ordered amount of Rs.81,04,980/- as if it were a fine imposed by the Magistrate under sub- section (5) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would fairly submit that, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the petitioners herein had deposited a sum of Rs.13,59,150/- before the 1st respondent and that the said amount was disbursed to all the workmen. Learned counsel would fairly submit that whatever may be the orders, which this Court may pass in this writ petition, the petitioners would not seek to recover the said amount of Rs.13,59,150/-, which has already been disbursed among the workmen concerned. Recording this submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is examined on merits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the respondents-workmen. An application was filed by Sri K.Surayya and 169 others before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act (Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal) along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the said application. According to the petitioners herein, the first respondent ought to have issued notices to them on the delay condonation petition itself, and only after considering their objections, he should have decided whether or not to condone the delay and it was only after an order was passed in the application filed for condonation of delay in registering the main petition, could the 1st respondent have taken up enquiry in the claim petition filed by the respondent-workmen that too only after issuing due notices to the petitioners herein. Petitioners would state that, despite the fact that the application to condone the delay was filed on 4.9.1990, on the very next date i.e. on 5.9.1990 the 1st respondent had numbered the main petition as M.W.Case No.72 of 1990 and had passed an order for attachment before judgment in I.A.No.2389 of 1990 dated 5.9.1990 attaching various items of machinery belonging to the 1st petitioner. Petitioners would contend that the ex parte order of attachment passed against them was in violation of the law laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments. It is stated that the 1st respondent is not vested with any power to order attachment before judgment either under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act or the Rules made there under. Petitioners would attribute motives to the 1st respondent and contend that while notices were normally sent by Registered post with Acknowledgement Due, in the present case, the 1st respondent had personally brought notices in I.A.No.2389 of 1990 along with the claim statement and served the same on the 1st petitioner on 14.9.1990. It is stated that while the claim petition contain the name of only the 2nd respondent, though it is stated to have been filed by 169 others, none of the names of the claimants, their descriptions and other particulars were furnished in the claim statement. Petitioners would also contend that neither the copy of the IA nor the affidavit filed in support thereof was furnished to them and merely a copy of the order of attachment before judgment was served on them. On 11.10.1990 the petitioners, through their counsel, appeared before the 1st respondent and requested that they may be furnished with the necessary papers and documents to enable them to file their counter affidavits. It is their case that no copies of documents were furnished to them and it was promised to them that they would be furnished by the next date of hearing. They had also sought a month’s time to get instructions from their head office to enable them to file counter affidavits. The 1st respondent is stated to have adjourned the matter stating that after checking up his tour programme and other work, he would fix a suitable day and intimate the same to them by separate notice. Since the petitioners did not hear from the 1st respondent even a week thereafter, the 2nd petitioner is stated to have gone to the office on 19.10.1990 to find out the next date of hearing and, to his shock and surprise, he was informed by the clerk of the 1st respondent that the claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent was allowed in toto on 16.10.1990 itself by setting the petitioners herein ex parte. Thereafter, he obtained the certified copy of the order and came to know that the differential wages from 8.3.1989 to

31.8.1990 to the tune of Rs.13,59,150/- along with fine of Rs.67,45,750/- was ordered. Thereafter, he filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order. The 1st respondent, after issuing notices to the claimants, heard the matter and dismissed the same through his order dated 27.11.1990. The petitioners would also contend that since the appropriate government for mines is the Central Government, the authority under the state government has no jurisdiction to entertain the application against the petitioners herein under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents-claimants wherein the aforesaid facts are not disputed. It is merely stated that notices were served on the petitioners to appear in the minimum wages case filed against them and that they have also filed vakalat and the case was finally posted for hearing on 16.10.1990 but the petitioners had failed to attend the Court. The fact that the petitioners were not put on notice in the IA filed to condone the delay in filing the claim petition and that the petitioners were not heard in this regard is not in dispute. The 1st respondent could have condoned the delay, in filing the application under the minimum wages act, only after putting the petitioners herein, (respondents before the authority), on notice and only after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard could he have taken up the main case for consideration. Therefore, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Inasmuch as the impugned orders are quashed on the ground that the petitioners have been denied reasonable opportunity, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the question as to whether the 1st respondent had the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. But, however, without costs. Dt: 5.12.2006 msv. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J