Bombay High Court
Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd. ... vs The Govt. Of Labour Officer And ... on 20 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp3731-15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3731 OF 2015
Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd., MIDC, Khamgaon,
Dist.Buldhana through its General Manager,
Satyakishore s/o Nawalkishore Mathur,
aged about 63 years, R/o Khamgaon,
District Buldana. ... ... ... Petitioner.
..Versus..
The Govt. Labour Officer & Inspector,
under Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Office of Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Buldana. ... ... ... Respondent.
.......................................................................................................................................................
Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for the respondent.
.......................................................................................................................................................
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR,
J.
DATED : 20 th
JUNE,
2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2014
passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Akola in proceedings
instituted under the Minimum Wages Act,1948 ( For short the Act). In
these proceedings, the application filed on behalf of the Inspector under
.....2/-
wp3731-15
the said Act under Section 20(2) has been allowed and the petitioner has
been directed to pay difference of minimum wages for 531 workers.
It is the case of the petitioner that initially inspection of the
company in question was conducted by the authorities under the said Act
on 26.12.2012. During that inspection about 283 workers were found
working. Certain deficiencies were pointed out in the inspection report
and as the same were not complied, a show cause notice came to be issued
to the petitioner. It was noticed that there was difference in the minimum
wages for about 531 workers and therefore the aforesaid application came
to be filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In the proceedings
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, a reply came to be filed on
behalf of the petitioner. However, the witness examined on behalf of the
respondent was not cross-examined. After giving due opportunity to the
petitioner, Assistant Labour Commissioner by an order directed payment
of difference of wages for 531 workers.
Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner did
not contain any reasons. He submitted that in response to the application
that was moved under Section 20(2) of the said Act, reply came to be filed
.....3/-
wp3731-15
on 22.8.2013. He further submitted that on some dates the representative
of the petitioner remained absent due to which the witness examined on
behalf of the respondent could not be cross-examined. Merely on aforesaid
basis the impugned order came to be passed.
Ms. Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent supported the impugned order. According to her, the order
was passed after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Though
reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner, no evidence was led on its
behalf to substantiate the contention. She, therefore, submitted that after
considering the entire material on record the impugned order came to be
passed.
I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and
perused the documents filed on record. Record indicates that notice was
issued to the petitioner. Reply was filed on record on 22.8.2013.
Thereafter the respondent examined a witness in support of the aforesaid
notice. However, the representative of the petitioner remained absent due
to which said witness could not be cross-examined. The inspection report
dated 26.12.2012 indicates that there were about 283 persons employed
with the petitioner. For the subsequent period from June, 2012 till
.....4/-
wp3731-15
November, 2012 about 531 workers were shown on the roll. On this basis
the authority arrived at a conclusion that the difference of minimum
wages was required to be paid for 531 workers.
Considering the fact that the dispute pertains to payment of
difference in the kind of minimum wages and it is necessary to adjudicate
the liability of the petitioner, consideration of the entire material along
with the evidence, if any, on behalf of the petitioner is required to be
taken into consideration. The record indicates that an opportunity was
given to the petitioner but it is the case of the petitioner that the
concerned official was not available after filing of the reply. Moreover, the
impugned order appears to have been passed on perusal of the inspection
report. Considering the interests of justice and the fact that the matter
pertains to payment of minimum wages, one opportunity deserves to be
granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.
In view of aforesaid, following order is passed.
(I) The order dated 23.7.2014 is set aside with a view to grant
one opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings which is
subject to petitioner depositing 50% of the amount adjudicated in the
order dated 23.7.2014 within 8 weeks from today. Needless to say that the
.....5/-
wp3731-15
deposit of 50% amount would be subject to final decision of the
proceedings.
(ii) The petitioner shall also pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondent.
(iii) After compliance with the aforesaid directions, the
proceedings shall be taken for consideration on merits.
(iv) It will be open for the petitioner to lead evidence in support
of its case if it so desires.
(v) The proceedings shall be decided expeditiously and within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
(vi) The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
(vii) No costs.
JUDGE
Hirekhan
...../-
