G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, Radhey Shyam, a hotel owner has challenged the order of the Minimum Wages Authority, dated July 15th 1980,directing him to pay Rs. 1410/ being the amount of arrears representing the amount less paid than the minimum wages to his various employees.
(2.) THE undisputed facts, are that the petitioner is a hotel owner at Jodhpur and some of its employees who were present at the time of inspection by the Labour Inspector, represented on inquiry that the wages which were being paid to them were less than the minimum wages. On the basis of this inquiry, the Labour Inspector filed an application before the Minimum Wages Authority, Jodhpur. THE Inspector was examined and one Bhim Raj, who is alleged to be the Munim, was examined by the petitioner. The Minimum Wages Authority accepted the application of the Labour Inspector so far as the complaint' regarding the payment of wages less than the minimum wages were concerned, but rejected the claim regarding the Overtime wages. Mr. Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Authority had no jurisdiction to give a direction for depositing the amount of Rs. 1410/- before him. It was pointed out that under sub-clause (5) of Section 20, no such procedure is provided. On the contrary, if a direction is not obeyed and the amount is not paid, the Authority can move the Magistrate, if he himself is not a Magistrate to realise the amount. It was also argued that the solitary statement of the Inspector was not; sufficient to hold the petitioner liable, because, those very workmen, the state-ments of whom were recorded by the Inspector, for making this complaint, have later on, filed affidavits with the written statement of the petitioner, that the entire amount was paid, and they have no grievance. It was argued that the burden is on the Inspector and in the absence of evidence of the workmen the solitary statement should not be treated as enough, more so, when it is rebutted by the evidence of Bhim Raj. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Mysore High Court in the Municipal Borough, Bijapur vs. Gundawan (1 ). I have considered the submissions of Mr. Arora, appearing for the petitioner. Section 20 (5) is as under: - "sub-section (5) of Section 20 provides that any amount directed to be paid by the Authority under Section 20 may be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a Magistrate. The recovery of the fine may be done by the Authority is a Magistrate. If the Authority is not a Magistrate the amount may be recovered by any Magistrate to whom the Authority makes an application in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate. It is true that it contains no provision for making a direction that the amount should be deposited. It is also true that according to it. the Minimum Wages Authority, if he himself is not a Magistrate, can on failure to pay the amount to the workmen, as per the directions given, apply to the Magistrate concerned for the recovery of the amount. However, I am of the opinion that the mere fact that the Authority concerned, after giving direction to pay Rs. 1410/-to the workmen, being the balance of the minimum wages, has further directed that the amount should be deposited before the Authority so that it can be paid to the workmen, provides no legal valid ground for interference under Article - 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the peti- tioner who has got no legitimate defence against the claim on merits. Even, if it is assumed that in the absence of specific provision he could not have given a direction for depositing the amount, then also it is only in respect of mode of payment and the procedure to be adopted for the same. This Court in Gyan Singh vs. Collector, Bhilwara (2), even after holding that the Collector was not authorized to make the recovery under any law for realization of the land revenue, and he should have proceeded under the Public Demands Recovery Act only, refused to interfere and observed as under: - "in this particular case we fail to understand how the applicant can deny his liability under an order under the Workmen's Compensation Act, though of course he has actually done so. In the circumstances though the Collector was wrong in not forwarding the objection to the officer who had sent him the requisition, we are not prepared to interfere in favour of the applicant whose denial appears to us to be dishonest. " Since the Authority concerned could give direction for the payment of minimum wages and for the payment of the balance remaining due. I do not find any substantial irregularity in directing that the amount should be deposited first before the Authority so that it may be paid to the workmen concerned. In any case, substantial justice has been done. So far as the objection regarding the burden of proof is concerned, undoubtedly, the Inspector has examined himself as a witness, and therefore, there was evidence before the Authority concerned. It is also to be noted that the proprietor of the firm did not appear to rebut it, but produced one Bhim Raj, the alleged Munim, who had no record of the payments actually made. No reliance can be placed on the affidavits, which were procured by the proprietor of the firm produced with a written statement because the workmen in the employment of the petitioner had not been produced in defence. It is difficult to believe that those affidavits were given voluntarily. In any case this necessitates the appreciation of evidence, and the Minimum Wages Authority failed to rely upon the statement of the Labour Inspector. ;