Allowed

Ircon International Ltd., Rep. by its Project Manager, v. Authority Under Minimum wages Act/Deputy Commissioner

Telangana HC30 Jul 2015WP/4778/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition challenging a minimum wage award passed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The High Court set aside the impugned orders for recovery and compensation because they were passed without proper examination of workmen and recording of statements as required by law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.07.2001 awarding Rs. 37,895/- and compensation was set aside.

Ircon International Ltd., Rep. by its Project… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

*********

¶3

W.P.No.4778 of 2002

¶4

Between: IRCON International Ltd.(P & E)

¶5

… Petitioner/Appellant (s)

¶6

And

¶7

Authority under Minimum Wages Act Deputy Commissioner of Labour and another

¶8

… Respondent (s)

¶9

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.07.2015

¶10

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶12

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Yes/No allowed to see the Judgments?

¶13

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No to Law Reports/Journals

¶14

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.No.4778 OF 2002

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2001 in M.W.No.10/2001 and consequential proceedings in S.T.C.No.59/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram, Cuddapah awarding an amount of Rs.37,895/- of an alleged difference of minimum wages along with Rs.1,89,475/- as five times of compensation to the alleged workmen. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the finalization of tenders, the petitioner had an agreement on 26.03.1998 with R & B Department for widening and strengthening of Cuddapah to Tadipatri Road which is the A.P.State Highway No.3. The work commenced on 01.05.1998 and was completed by 24.12.2000 and the concerned Engineer issued a certificate of completion of work dated 12.01.2001. While so, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-2^nd respondent submitted an application dated 12.02.2001 to the 1^st respondent under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the petitioner is paying less than the minimum wages to their contract workers engaged in bridge construction work at 40/1 near I.C.L. Factory, Yerraguntla, Kamalapuram. Thereafter on 23.01.2001, he inspected the site and accordingly estimated the value of the relief sought for the employees at the sum of Rs.37,895/- and enclosed a list of alleged 20 workers. Later, in pursuance of the

¶18

application submitted by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent passed an order under Section 20(3) of the Act, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.37,895/- together with Rs.1,89,475/- as five times of compensation to the alleged workmen totalling to Rs.2,27,370/-. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the said awarded amount, the 1^st respondent filed S.T.C.No.59/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamalapuram, Cuddapah District under Section 20(5)(b) of the Act for recovery of the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶19

No counter is filed by the respondents, though the matter is pending from the year 2002. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour took time for producing the records. Today he filed a memo stating that the entire records relating to the case were washed away during the heavy floods occurred in Kadapa town in the year 2001.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work was completed on 24.12.2000 and a certificate of completion of work was also issued on 12.01.2001. Later on 23.01.2001, the 2^nd respondent alleged to have inspected the site and just gave list of the names of the workers, without recording their statements. Basing on the same, the 2^nd respondent filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Act. He also submits that there is no proof that the 2^nd respondent actually inspected the site on 23.01.2001, in fact on 23.01.2001, there was no work going on, on the site and no seizure of records or registers was effected. He further submits that the petitioner did not directly engage the workers for construction of bridge and that the amounts were paid to the said contractor on the actual value of the work done and the rates finalized between the petitioner and the contractor. He further submits that the 2^nd respondent except giving the list of names of the workers, has not given their address and other particulars which is in violation of Section 19(2)(c) and 19(4) of the Act.

¶21

Since no counter is filed, the allegations in the writ affidavit have to be taken as true. No records are produced showing that the inspection has taken place on 23.01.2001. The petitioner has got executed the work through Contractor and the said work was also completed by 12.01.2001. Though the impugned order is passed basing on the inspection made by the 2^nd respondent, no statements of witness are produced and only the list of workmen without their address and particulars, signed by the 2^nd respondent on 22.01.2001 is filed which goes to show that there was no proper examination of workmen. Therefore, the impugned orders is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 19(2)(c) and 19(4) of the Act. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any shall stand closed.

¶23

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 30.07.2015 dv

Ircon International Ltd., Rep. by its Project Manager, v. Authority Under Minimum wages Act/Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ircon International Ltd., Rep. by its Project Manager, v. Authority Under Minimum wages Act/Deputy Commissioner

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

Mohammed Farhath Ali Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

M.A Sattar Baig Vs The G.H.M.C

Mohammed Johny Miya, Vs The Commissionr

T. VAddikasulu, Vs The Depot Manager

N.Yohashuva Vs The Depot Manager Mandukur

P.Soma Raju Vs C.M.E. Vishakapatnam Port Trust Vsp