RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner firm is a registered company registered under the Companies Act. Its registered office as well as factory are situated at A - 105/2 Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 was taken as a Trainee Medical Representative for period of 12 months by the Director of the petitioner Company. His appointment was made at New Delhi and he was paid salary there. He moved an application under the Minimum Wages Act before respondent No. 1 inter alia, alleging that he was working as Medical Representative of the petitioners and they were not paying him minimum wages as provided by the State Government of U.P. The petitioners raised preliminary objection disputing the question of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 alleging that the registered office of the Company and its factory are at New Delhi. The appointment of respondent No. 2 was also made at New Delhi, therefore, the application was not maintainable before respondent No. 1 nor the Government orders issued by the U.P. Government were applicable. The preliminary objection of the petitioners regarding jurisdiction at Bulandshahar was rejected vide order dated July 30, 1997 by respondent No. 1. After preliminary objection was rejected, the petitioners filed detailed written statement. Besides taking the plea of jurisdiction it was also stated that respondent No. 2 was not regular appointee of the Company and as such he was not entitled to minimum wages. Respondent No. 2 in support of his case filed oral as well as documentary evidence and his claim was decreed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated March 31, 1999. Both the petitioners and respondent No. 2 filed review petition for reviewing the order dated March 31, 1999 which was dismissed vide order dated August 12, 1999 on the ground that there was no provision for review under the Minimum Wages Act. Recovery certificate was issued by respondent No. 1 to Collector, Bulandshahar for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue. Aggrieved by the order dated March 31, 1999 the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 has erred in holding that as the place of work of respondent No. 2 was within the State of U.P., therefore, he was entitled to get minimum wages as are payable to the employees of the factory situated in U.P. under the U.P. Government Order dated January 26, 1992. He further contends that Government order of which benefit has been given to respondent No. 2 is applicable only to the employees working in factories situate within the State of U.P. whereas in the instant case the factory and the registered office of the petitioners-company are located in New Delhi, therefore, the minimum wages as applicable to the employees working in the factories situate in U.P. would not be applicable to respondent No. 2. He also contends that respondent No. 2 was being paid minimum wages as per rules. No deductions were made from his salary except for the absence. Therefore, the claim of respondent No. 2 was liable to be rejected. He further contends that the entire proceedings before respondent No.1 were without jurisdiction and it has illegally created huge liability of more than Rs. 71,000/- which amount is now being recovered as arrears of land revenue, which the petitioner-company is not liable o pay, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. Thus, the question of jurisdiction stands settled. There is no dispute about the rates of wages payable to respondent under Minimum Wages Act.
(3.) It has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that respondent No. 2 was appointed as Medical Representative and field area of Bulandshahar region was assigned to him. It is submitted that prior to filing of the present application under Payment of Minimum Wages Act before the Prescribed Authority at Bulandshahar he approached his counter part at Allahabad for similar cause of action i.e. non-payment of wages. The said application was allowed and an award was made in favour of respondent No. 3. It is also relevant to mention here that this Court in Writ Petition No. 14936 of 1998, Caste Laboratory Ltd. v. Prescribed Authority and another, has held that the Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act had jurisdiction to hear the matter. Aggrieved by the said order of this Court passed by the learned single Judge, Special Appeal No. 355 of 1998 was filed which too was dismissed.;