Allowed

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners v. Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023WP/16170/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 quashing a docket order by the Minimum Wages Authority. The Court held that the Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for bonus and compensation, not just wages, and set aside the order for lacking reasons.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; quashed the docket order dated 05.07.2006; dismissed M.W. Case No. 110 of 2005.

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t 3167I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16170 OF 2006

¶8

Between:

¶9

IVI/s. Economrc transport organisation floet owners, Owners & Transport Contractors, D.No. 5-3-867, Malakunta Road, Near Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Regional ltlanager, B. Mallikarjunappa

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Thodupunuri Srinivas, S/o. Sathaiah R/o. 1-3-31, Old Bazar, Bramhim Wada, Karimnagar.

¶13

2 The Authority Under minimum Wages Act' 1948 and, The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Certiorari: i. call for the records pertains to order dt. 5-7-06 in MW Case No. 1 10 of 2005 on the fi16 of 2nd Respondent, and quash the same and declare that MW Case No.1 10 of 2005 on the file of 2nd respondent, as filed and pending, is not maintainable.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 20183 OF 2006)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in MW Case No. 110 of 2005 on the file of 2nd Respondent, pending. disposal of the above WP.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VASUDEVA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.1617O of 2O06

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hled seeking to call for the records pertaining to the docket order dated 05.07.2006 passed in M.W. Case No. 110 of 2005 by respondent No.2 i.e. the Authority under Minimum Wages Act and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, and quash the same .

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent No.t herein has hled an application before responden! No.2 seeking a direction under sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to the petitioner herein for payment of Rs.2,22,315/ - towards difference of wages, compensation, one month salary towards bonus and one month advance n<.rtice, etc. and the same was numbered as M.W. Case No.110 r.rf 2O05. In the said case, petitioner herein had filed a detailed counter opposing the very maintainability ol the said Minimum Wages case. Learned counsel has further

¶27

¶28

stated that the petitioner has also filed an I.A. seeking dismissal of the Minimum Wages Case at the preliminary stage itself raising the ground of maintainability. However, the responclent No.2 without appreciating the merits of the case in^proper perspective had dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner on totally untenable grounds and absolutely no reasons were assigned by respondent No.2 while dismissing the I.A. except using the word 'absurd'. Learned counsel has further stated that in case the minimum wages are not paid to the employee, then only tlre authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, will have the jurisdiction to entertain any application. But, in this particular case, the bonus, the compensation and the unpaid wages were claimed by respondent No.1, which cannot be adjudicated by respondent No.2 authority. The remedy of respondent No. 1 lies somewhere eise, but without adverting to the same, the respondent No.2 had dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶29

On 03.O8.2OO6 while admitting the Writ Petition, this Court has granted interim stay and the said interim order is still in subsistence. Even though 16 years have been eiaFsed after filing of the writ petition, no Vakalat has Lreen liled on behalf of

¶30

¶31

respondent No. 1. Therefore, on 25.11 .2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take out fresh personal notice to respondent No.l. In spite of service of said notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is set ex parte.

¶32

Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent No.1 has Iiled the case before respondent No.2 seeking difference of wages, compensation, one month salary towards bonus and one month advance notice, etc. amounting to Rs.2,22,3151-. A counter has also been filed by respondent No. t herein opposing the claim. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 has restricted his claim to Rs.58,048/- for the period from February, 2OO2, to January, 2OO4 atd even though the said I.A. was allowed, the respondent No. 1 did not carry out the amendment nor filed any amended fair copy. At that stage, the petitioner has {iled the present I.A. seeking to dismiss the Minimum Wage Case at the preliminary stage itself wherein the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned interim order.

¶33

A perusal of the impugned interim order shows that except stating that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable and not convincing, and that the contention raised therein is absurd, no other reason has been

¶34

¶35

given by the authority. Further, the authority has stated that if the total wages are not paid, the same would amount to difference in wages and thereby dismissed the I.A. The authority concerned without giving any finding as to what is the minimum wages percentage and the actual wages being paid to the respondent No. 1, simply cannot assume the^{jurisdiction.} Moreover, the respondent No. I is claiming Bonus and Compensation which clearly do not fall under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act.

¶36

Having regard to the above-stated reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the docket order dated O5.O7.2006 passed in M.W. Case No. 110 of 2005 by respondent No.2 i.e. the Authority under Minimum Wages Act and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar. Consequently, the Minimum Wages Case No. 110 of 2OO5 is dismissed leaving it open to the respondent No. 1 to approach the proper forum if he is so advised.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if

¶38

any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

That Rule Nisi has been made Absolute as above witness

¶40

The Hon'ble SRI UJJAL BHUYAN, The Chief Justice on this Monday, The Twenty Fourth Day Of April, Two Thousand And Twenty Three

¶41

SD/-K.AMMAJI

¶42

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶43

SECTI OFFICER

¶44

To, 1 The Authority Under minimum Wages Act, 194g and, The Assistant uommtsstoner of Labour, Karimnagar.

¶45

.. " "G"d..,.

¶46

¶47

One CC to SRI K VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the Siate of Telangana
louTl
4. Two CD Copies
BN
'*c il(

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410412023

ORDER

WP.No.16170 of 2006

o Te
t!<br>.$
:.
s
+
-<rll;
iFi Y.

¶55

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

C^il\sloElzt

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners v. Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners v. Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Ashfaq Vs Ms. Ambika

K.Prabhakar Rao, Vs Sri Ananth Ramulu

Abid Ali, CHATTISGARH-495222 Vs the Commandant, Hyderabad and 3 Others

M.Anantha Ramulu Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another

Saroj Kanwar Raj Purohit Vs Sri Amoy Kumar (lAS)