Tirath Ram Shah Hospital vs Mr. V. Kumar And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1955 Del

JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 12.12.2001 of the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act whereby the competent authority directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4410/- against the Minimum Wages Act to each of the respondents within 30 days from the date of order. In case of non-payment, the petitioner was to pay five times the aforesaid amount to each of the respondents.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents made an application before the competent authority alleging that they were not being paid minimum wages. Some of the respondents alleged that they were entitled to a minimum wage of Rs. 2585/- p.m. and were being paid only Rs. 1850/- p.m. while others alleged that they were entitled to minimum wage of Rs. 2419/- while they were being paid minimum wage of Rs. 1850/- p.m. The respondents who claimed that they were entitled to a minimum wage of Rs. 2419/- p.m. claimed a difference of Rs. 3414/- and those who claimed that minimum wage was Rs. 2585/- p.m. they claimed a difference of Rs. 4410/-. Notices of the applications were sent to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to file counter affidavit in the case despite giving opportunities. Finding that no counter has been filed to the applications, the competent authority passed an order allowing the applications observing that it had no option but to treat the claims of the applicants as true and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4410/- to each of the claimant. It is obvious that the claim applications were allowed without any evidence of the claimants and without looking into the applications of the claimants. While some of the claimants had claimed that minimum wage was Rs. 2585/- others have claimed that minimum wage was Rs. 2419/-, each applicant alleged that he was being paid a sum of Rs. 1850/- p.m. but the competent authority passed an order without specifying as to what was the minimum wages payable to each employee.

3. I consider that even if a party is proceeded ex-parte because of non appearance or non filing of reply to the application, the competent authority is supposed to act in a judicious manner. While allowing the application, the competent authority is supposed to consider the notification prevalent at that time in respect of minimum wages, what were the wages being paid, whether the application was made within the prescribed period of six months, as required under law and then only pass an order.

4. All the applicants had stated that they were not being paid minimum wages since January 2000, the applications were made on 23.4.2001. The applications were made belatedly, after the limitation period of six months.

5. The order of the competent authority is without application of mind and is liable to be set aside. I, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the order of the competent authority. The competent authority is directed to consider matter afresh on merits.