Allahabad High Court
Nagar Palika Parishad Faizabad ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner ... on 17 April, 2013
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4135 of 2007
Petitioner :- Nagar Palika Parishad Faizabad And Ors.
Respondent :- Deputy Labour Commissioner Faizabad And 7 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- H.N.B.Sinha
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,N K Pandey,P.S. Bajpai
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri H. N. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 to 8.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner exercising powers as competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act").
The Deputy Labour Commissioner by the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 20 (2) of the Act has directed for payment of minimum wages @ Rs. 80/- per day to the respondents no. 2 to 8 as against the amount of Rs. 55/- per day paid to them for a period of six months preceding the date of presentation of the application and w.e.f. 1.4.2007.
In challenging the above order the submission of Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the claim raised by respondents no. 2 to 8 was barred by time; proper opportunity was not given to the petitioners to defend themselves; and the Deputy Labour Commissioner exceed his jurisdiction in awarding the minimum wages for the future period.
The respondents no. 2 to 8 have claimed minimum wages for a period of six months preceding the presentation of the application. Thus, the claim raised was within six months from the date the amount become payable.Therefore, the application was not beyond time.
The argument that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity as he had raised a preliminary objection and the Deputy Labour Commissioner was seized with the same and not with the merits of the case is not acceptable for the simple reason that the impugned order was passed after parties were heard at length on 28.3.2007 as well as on 29.3.2007. It is on the satisfactory hearing of the parties that the order was passed and as such it is misconceived to allege that opportunity was not given.
The order records that the respondents no. 2 to 8 were being paid wages @ 55/- per day whereas the minimum wages prescribed were Rs. 80/- per day at the relevant time.
In view of the above, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has rightly directed for payment of difference to each of the respondents for a period of six months preceding the date of presentation of the application total amounting to Rs. 27,300/-.
As far as direction to pay the minimum wages from 1.4.2007 is concerned, there was no demand by the respondents for minimum wages for the period after 1.4.2007.
In this view of the matter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in directing for payment of minimum wages from 1.4.2007 also.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.3.2007 is upheld with the modification that the direction for payment of minimum wages w.e.f. 1.4.2007 shall stand deleted.
The petitioners would make the deposit of the amount of the minimum wages as directed within one month from today after adjusting the amount already deposited.
The above modification would not affect the right of the respondents no. 2 to 8 for claiming minimum wages for the subsequent period in accordance with law, if they had worked.
Petition disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.4.2013
SKS
