P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. - (1.) The respondents in WP (C) No. 3309 of 2002 on the file of this Court are the appellants in this appeal. They challenge the decision of the 'learned single Judge holding that the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 20(2) of the Act and direct the payment of the difference in the wages paid and the minimum wages fixed. The proceeding under the Act was launched on a complaint by the Inspector under the Act stating that the employer had paid to the employees wages below the minimum wages fixed under the statute. The learned single Judge held that the question of jurisdiction or the lack of it on the authority under the Minimum Wages Act stood concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli AIR 1969 SC 1335 : 1969 (1) SCC 873 : 1969-II-LLJ-651, and the subsequent decision following it, in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha AIR 1991 SC 520: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 465. The learned single Judge hence quashed the proceedings including the final order passed by the authority under the Act on the ground that the authority, under the Act, the sub-divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to pass the order impugned.
(2.) Learned Government counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned single Judge has misunderstood the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to by him and that on a close reading of the decision in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli (supra) it will be seen that the complaint in this case was perfectly maintainable before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. He also submitted that, if the view of the learned single Judge were held to be correct, it would mean that Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act itself would be rendered redundant since it could not be applied to any claim or complaint that the minimum wages fixed by the Government has not been paid by the employer. Counsel for the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Judge has rightly held that the order of the authority under the Act was one without jurisdiction and the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court has been properly understood by the learned single Judge. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere with the decision. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel, who intervened on behalf of the Central Government, submitted that the very object with which Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act was enacted, would be frustrated if the view of the learned single Judge is upheld and the decision of the learned single Judge called for interference in appeal.
(3.) The respondent in the appeal had engaged certain workers for the construction of a building. The Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, conducted an inspection of the building site and came to understand from the workmen employed, that they were not being paid the minimum wages fixed by the Government for such workmen. The Inspector issued a notice to the employer asking him to produce the relevant documents for inspection and informed the employer that during the inspection, 29 labourers were found working on wages less than the minimum wages fixed. He called upon the employer, the writ petitioner, to pay the difference in wages to the workmen without delay. The writ petitioner, according to him, produced the relevant documents before the Labour Enforcement Officer, but the officer concerned, without making a proper inspection of the documents, filed a petition before the authority under the Act, namely, the Sub-divisional Officer, by way of a claim under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act. The authority numbered the complaint as MW Case No. 1 of 2002. After giving the writ petitioner adequate opportunities to object to the claim or the complaint, the authority ultimately passed the order on June 30, 2002 calling upon the employer to pay the difference in the wages paid and the minimum wages fixed, along with a penalty at 10 times the deficient amount paid. The writ petitioner originally approached the Court even before filing his objection before the authority under the Act, seeking the quashing of the notice issued to him on the ground that the authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint. Since the order was passed by the authority meanwhile, the writ petitioner sought an amendment of the writ petition to include an additional prayer seeking to quash the order of the authority under the Act, marked Annexure-16 to the writ petition. It may be noticed that the said order is appealable under the Act. The argument raised on behalf of the writ petitioner was that the workmen who had the complaint that minimum wages had not been paid or something less than the minimum wages had been paid, have to approach the concerned authority under the Payment of Wages Act or under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and they could not maintain a complaint before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act under Section 20(2) thereof and that the authority had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on such a complaint.;