Allowed

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt. v. the Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024WRIC/1002906/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed orders dated 2010, 2012, and a recovery certificate of 2013 passed against a mobile repair shop. The court held that the shop was not covered under the Minimum Wages Act and the workers were employed by a third party, rendering the impugned actions liable to be set aside.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and orders dated 16.12.2010, order dated 27.07.2012, and recovery certificate dated 27.02.2013 passed by the prescribed authority are quashed.

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26763

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002906 of 2013 Petitioner :- M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt.

¶4

Respondent :- The Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar,Rajendra Prasad Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Notice was served to be issued to the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 by means of an order dated 02.05.2013. The office has reported that the notices sent to the opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4 have not been received back and service of notice is deemed sent to opposite parties no. 2,3 and 4. However, the notice sent to the opposite party no.5 has been received back with the remark that no such person is residing at the given address.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the opposite party no.5 is not a necessary party and the case can be decided even in absence of the opposite party no.5. Accordingly, the court proceeds to hear and decide the petition in absence of the opposite party no.5.

¶9

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

By means of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment and order date 16.12.2010 passed by the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 payable to them. An order dated 27.07.2012, rejecting an

¶11

application for recall of the aforesaid order and a recovery certificate dated 27.02.2013 issued in furtherance of the aforesaid order.

¶12

The Labour Enforcement Officer had submitted a report dated 04.10.2008 under Section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, alleging that opposite parties no. 2 to 4 were employee of the petitioner's establishment and they were paid wages less than the prescribed minimum wages.

¶13

The petitioner submitted a written statement wherein some preliminary objections were also raised. The petitioner inter alia raised a preliminary objection that it does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Part 1 of the Schedule appended to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and, therefore, the provisions of the aforesaid Act are not applicable to the petitioner's establishment.

¶14

It was stated in the reply that the petitioner had not employed the opposite parties no.2 to 4 and they were employees of Walson's Services Pvt. Ltd., with whom the petitioner had entered in a contract for providing outsource manpower to it. As the opposite parties no.2 to 4 were not employed by the petitioner, the petitioner was not liable to pay any wages to those persons.

¶15

By means of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2010, wherein it is recorded that the petitioner did not submit any reply, which appears to be incorrect from the material placed on record before this court.

¶16

Without taking into consideration the pleas raised by the petitioner in its reply and without recording a satisfaction as to whether the opposite party no.2 to 4 were employed of the petitioner and where the petitioner's establishment was governed by the provision of Minimum Wages Act, the

¶17

prescribed authority had passed an impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2010.

¶18

As the petitioner was running a mobile repair shop, which is not mentioned in the schedule appended to the Minimum Wages Act, the petitioner's establishment is not governed under provision of Minimum Wages Act. Moreover, as the opposite parties no.2 to 4 are employees of Welson's Services Pvt. Ltd. and they were not employees of the petitioner's organization, the petitioner was not liable to pay any wages, including the minimum wages, to the opposite party no.2 to 4. The impugned orders have been passed without taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter and hence the same are liable to be quashed.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and orders dated 16.12.2010 passed by the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, 27.07.2012 and a recovery certificate dated 27.02.2013 are hereby quashed.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt. v. the Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt. v. the Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj @ Neeraj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pradeep Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

A (Minor) Thru. His Mother C of Case Crime No. 190/2023 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Tehri Kothi Lucknow vs Govind Prasad S/O Late Kanhiya Lal

Bechuram vs Shyam Lal and Others

Vijay Kumar Singh and 18 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 6 Others