The Managing Director v. Smt Dikonda Vimala
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 04 Dec 2007
- Bench
- C V RAMULU
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from raising tenable objections, as permissible under the law, before the second respondent while hearing the main application under Section 20(2) of the Act. No order as to costs. Dt.04.12.2007 v…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14656 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the impugned order, dated 16.06.2001, passed by the 2nd respondent- Authority under Minimum Wages Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar in M.W.M.P.No.1 of 1998, as arbitrary and illegal.
Petitioner is the Management, respondent No.1 is the employee and respondent No.2 is the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”). It appears, an application under Section 20(2) of the Act was filed before the 2nd respondent on
01.09.1998 claiming difference of wages. Along with the said application, an application to condone the delay in filing the same was also filed and the same was taken up as MWMP.No.1 of 1998 and it was allowed on 16.06.2001 holding that the petitioner, who was an illiterate and ignorant of law, had been making regular oral representations for enhancement of wages and there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. The main application was posted to
04.07.2001 for hearing. Aggrieved by the same, management filed this writ petition.
There is no necessity of going into all the details.
The order impugned is only an order condoning the delay in approaching the authority under the Act. The second respondent herein has considered each and every aspect of the matter, and thus, came to the conclusion that the delay in filing the application under Section 20(2) of the Act is liable to be condoned, and as such, an order to that effect was passed on 16.06.2001.
I am of the opinion that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in MWMP.No.1 of 1998, dated 16.06.2001, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is purely a discretionary order. No interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from raising tenable objections, as permissible under the law, before the second respondent while hearing the main application under Section 20(2) of the Act. No order as to costs. Dt.04.12.2007 v v _____________
(C.V.RAMULU,J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Minimum Wages Act; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Dec 2007. The bench was C V RAMULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.