The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18914 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------------- M/s. Excel Security and Allied Services P. Ltd., BBSR …..… Petitioner -Versus- Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner Central, Sundargarh & another …..… Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. R.N.Patnaik, Advocate For Opp.Parties : Mr. Jateswar Nayak, CGC along with Mr.P.K.Parhi, DSGI for OP No.1 ------------------ P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
though there is no dispute that the report has been taken to be 4 an application under Section 20 of the Act has been submitted within six months from the date as we find from the date of minimum wages became payable. 4. We find from the application on record as well as report was brought under Section 20 before the competent authority on 29.2.2012. Shri Patnaik does not deny that the application or the cause of action arose only after the notification in the enhancement of the minimum wages surfaced. It is in the circumstances this Court finds there has been proper consideration regarding the entertanability of the application by the statutory authority and there is no scope for entertaining the writ application. 5. Coming to the second ground urged herein, this Court finds even assuming that the immediate employer was served with notice notice issued by the adjudicating authority after 11 years but there has been fullest opportunity to the immediate employer to contest the case and there has been no ground on behalf of the immediate employer to decline the claim involved therein. As we have already observed, application was filed in time, service of copy after lapse of long time does not get affected by the first proviso to Section 20(2) taken note hereinabove. 6. On the question of management not reimbursing the immediate employer as computed by the competent authority, this Court observes for the clear proviso in the Minimum Wages Act and the provisions made through notifications enhancing wages, law has been well settled, that it is the 5 responsibility of the immediate employer to first pay the amount and on an application of such outstanding being placed before the management, there would be no bar on the part of the principal employer, management in reimbursing the same. We do not find the petitioner is able to satisfy that there has been already payment of the amount directed and further indication that the principal employer is not making effort to pay the dues to the contractor on this count. 7. This Court finds there is no such circumstances in both the grounds urged hereinabove. As a consequence this Court finds
Arguments
HE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO A N D Date of hearing: 17.07.2023 Date of judgment: 17.07.2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biswanath Rath, J We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of entertainability of the application. 2. Undisputedly the writ petition involves a challenge to the order/award dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Regional Labour 2 Commissioner (Central), Rourkela in Application No. MWA/51/2022 in exercise of power under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 3. The background of the case is that as a consequence of contract between the petitioner and the principal employer man power was supplied by immediate employer. Inspector concerned in exercise of power under section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 made an investigation and found there has been payment of wages of the 32 workers by the immediate employer and the contract for the payment of wages appears to be for the period from 1.12.2010 and 31.7.2011. 4. It is on the basis of the report, proceeding was initiated by the competent authority. Parties were heard and finally there is direction by way of order directing the opposite party no.1- M/s. Excel Security & Allied Services (P) Ltd.-petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,53,280/- to the concerned 32 workers through their bank accounts within thirty days with further directions therein. 5. The immediate employer by bringing the present litigation herein advances two grounds in his challenge to the impugned order herein. The first ground of challenge is, the statute i.e. first for the proviso to Section 20(2), provides that application has to be brought within six months. While not disputing that the application was brought within six months, Shri Pattnaik, learned counsel, however, claims immediate employer being noticed after 12 years of the institution of the proceeding, the 3 entertainability of the proceeding is affected by the first proviso Section 20(2). 6. The second limb of argument by Shri Patnaik appears to be that there has been no payment of the additional wages by the principal employer and for such notifications after expiry of the period of contract, petitioner herein is not liable to make such payment. 7. Considering points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain the writ petition, this Court attending the first limb of argument takes note of first proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said proviso reads as follows : “20. Claims.(2) xx xx Provided that every such application shall be represented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable. Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” 3. Reading the aforesaid provision, i.e. the statutory arrangement under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the only requirement in putting up a claim of less payment is that such application should be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages became payable. This Court on entire reading of the pleadings before the forum below and the submission of learned counsel, Shri Patnaik finds that
Decision
there is no legal ground to admit the writ petition. Writ petition thus stands dismissed at the stage of admission. ……………………… Biswanath Rath, J. M.S.Sahoo, J. I agree. …………………… M.S.Sahoo, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th July, 2023/dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 21-Jul-2023 13:47:41