R.Rama Devi v. Commissioner of Labour)

Counsel for the Respondents: None. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in posting M.W.No.35 of 1998 at Eluru, instead of at Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties. I have perused the record. The petitioner, who is the Principal of Sri Durga Malleswara Siddartha Mahila Kalasala, Vijayawada, averred in her affidavit that respondent No.1, who entertained the application filed by respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Institution, gave notice to the petitioner for hearing at Vijayawada. It is further stated that hearing of the case was adjourned on different dates, namely 04.12.1998, 05.01.1999,

05.02.1999 and 02.03.1999 and that oral evidence was recorded on the last mentioned date. It is further averred that respondent No.1 while adjourning all the cases listed on 20.07.1999 to 17.08.1999 to be heard at Vijayawada, posted M.W.No.35 of 1998 alone to 31.07.1999 to be heard at Eluru. The petitioner, therefore, alleged invidious discrimination in fixing the place of hearing. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is, inter alia, mentioned that at the instance of the petitioner, the case was adjourned from 23.06.1998 to 17.07.1998, 12.08.1998 and 19.08.1998 for filing counter-affidavits and respondent No.2 was examined in chief on 05.02.1999 and at the instance of the petitioner, the case adjourned for his cross-examination to 02.03.1999. As the said date happened to be a public holiday, the case was adjourned to 09.03.1999; that at the request of the petitioner, the case was further adjourned to 16.03.1999 and that finally, respondent No.2 was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel on 20.04.1999.

It is further stated that at the instance of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 25.05.1999 to produce evidence on her side. On 15.06.1999, the case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, as a last chance, to 20.07.1999, with the observation that if evidence is not adduced, it will be treated as the petitioner not having evidence, and that on 20.07.1999, the petitioner’s counsel filed an application for adjournment and the case was finally adjourned to 31.07.1999 at Eluru, which is the head quarter, and there was no sitting Camp Court at Vijayawada during July 1999 and August 1999 till 24.08.1999. It is stated that due to non-cooperation of the petitioner and her counsel, the case, which was expected to be disposed of within a few months, could not be disposed of; that respondent No.1 had jurisdiction over West Godavari, East Godavari and Krishna Districts; that it normally holds sittings at Eluru and to suit the convenience of the parties, it also conducts Camp Courts in Viajayawada, Rajahmundry and Kakinada, once in a month and that in view of the delay caused in this particular case, the case was given short adjournments and posted at Eluru.

The above-mentioned facts clearly reveal the case underwent several adjournments mostly at the instance of the petitioner. Admittedly, the seat of respondent No.1 is at Eluru and he conducts Camp Courts at different places within his jurisdiction. In my considered view, on the facts narrated in the counter-affidavit, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in respondent No.1 fixing hearing at Eluru. The authority shall be conceded to have power to decide on the places of its sittings. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the institution she represents does not have financial capacity to attend the hearing at Eluru, which is not too far away from Vijayawada. I do not, therefore, see any reason for this Court’s interference with the discretion exercised by respondent No.1-authority. It is required to be observed that the petitioner got proceedings initiated under the Act, which is a beneficial legislation, stalled for the last nine years on the flimsy ground of not fixing the hearing at the option of the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition, which is a frivolous and vexatious piece of litigation, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated

28.07.1999, is vacated and WPMP.No.19417 of 1999 is dismissed. Dated:30.12.2008 GJ ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J