Amar Karmkar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4325 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 4360 of 2003
                         ........

Amar Karmkar                           ....   ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others        ....   ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III. For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate.

........

07/22.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Mr. Shahsi Kumar Verma has submitted that so far the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 442 relied by the petitioner is concerned, the same has been overruled by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 421/2003 reported in 2005 (1) JCR 220 (Jhr.).

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Ashutosh Anand has submitted that from perusal of Annexure-3, which is Form-7 under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it appears that the worker (respondent no. 5) was working as a Clerk in the garage of the petitioner and as per the Schedule of Minimum Wages Act, the worker was entitled for payment of Rs. 1149.30 per month and he has not been paid salary for 09 months and 04 days. Thus, as per Form-7, which has been used by the Labour Inspector, the word Minimum Wages goes for difference of payment of wages for the work done as the Labour Officer has specifically mentioned the dues of salary which was refused by the petitioner.

From perusal of Annexure-3, it appears that in Form-7, it has been mentioned at (d) and ([k) as follows:-

(d) ljdkj nkjk fu;r etnwjh dh U;qure nj ds vuqlkj ns; etnwjh vkSj nh xbZ etnwjh ds chp ds vUrj dk Hkqxrku [email protected]& :ñ ([k) eqvkotk ds :i esa [email protected]& :ñ vkosnd vko';drk gksus ij vkosnu i= esa la'kks/ku ;k tksM+&cny djus dh vuqefr pkgrk gS rFkk dkyokf/kr (foyEc) ds fy, {kek izkFkhZ gqWaA Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Nitu Sinha has submitted that matter may be listed on 08.12.2021 so as to clarify the situation.

Put up this case on 08.12.2021.

Office is directed to delete the name of AAG (B.S. Lal) from the cause list and reflect the name of learned counsel, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III on behalf of the respondent-State in the cause list.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-