(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) v. SRI.K.T.VENKATESHA FOR R3, ADVOCATES)

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA LABOUR INSPECTOR BELTHANGADI CIRCLE, BELTHANGADI DK DIST – 574 214 ASST.LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY FOR MINIMUM WAGES MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE DK – 576 001

ASST ENGINEER(TECHNICAL) MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, BELTHANGADI DK – 574 214 (BY SRI.DEVARAJ C.H. GA FOR R1 R2; SRI.K.T.VENKATESHA FOR R3, ADVOCATES) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9583 WP No. 38845 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD:21.06.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-D & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner-Establishment is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning correctness legality bearing No.¸ÀPÁDªÀÄ/PÀªÉÃPÁ/J¸ïDgï -226/2017 dated 21.06.2019 vide Annexure-D passed under Section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by respondent No.2 directing the petitioner-Establishment and respondent No.3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,744/- towards difference of minimum wages to 7 workmen.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Hareesh Bhandary for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the complaint of first respondent-Labour Inspector, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9583 WP No. 38845 of 2019 proceedings under Section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short “1948 Act”) was initiated. On service of notice, the petitioner is said to have submitted a letter date 23.08.2017 (Annexure-C) to the second respondent stating that the petitioner is not in Station and he would require some time to file objections and requested another date. Learned counsel would submit that without considering the said request, the second respondent proceeded to pass impugned order dated 21.06.2019 directing the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent herein jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,744/- to 7 workmen whose names find place in the list. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had no opportunity whatsoever to put forth its case and the impugned order is without any proper opportunity. Hence, learned counsel would pray for an opportunity to file objections and put forth their case before the second respondent-authority. Hence, prays for allowing the writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9583 WP No. 38845 of 2019

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as the petitioner has failed to utilize the opportunity provided.

On the complaint of respondent-Labour Inspector, proceedings under Section 20(2) of 1948 Act was initiated and the notice of proceedings was served on the petitioner. The petitioner, in terms of Annexure-C dated 23.08.2017 requested for another date, as he was out of Station. The date of hearing was 23.08.2017. Annexure-C though bears the date 23.08.2017, but was submitted to the second respondent only on 26.08.2017 subsequent to the hearing date. Therefore, the same cannot be taken note of, by the second respondent. Further, it is to be noted that the impugned order is passed on 21.06.2019. From the first date of hearing, i.e., 23.08.2017, the petitioner had nearly two years time, but the petitioner had not filed objections or made any - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9583 WP No. 38845 of 2019 effort to contest the proceedings before the second respondent. Though the petitioner had ample opportunity, he has not utilized the said opportunity before the second respondent.

The second respondent-authority taking note of the statement of the workers and material on record has rightly directed for payment of difference of minimum wages. Moreover the petitioner has not arrayed the workers, in favour of whom the impugned order is passed as parties to the present writ petition. In the absence of parties in whose favour the impugned order is passed, the present writ petition would not be maintainable.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- JUDGE MPK Ct:JR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38