NIRANJAN MAITI AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DHALBHUM, AND OTHERS ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 205, 206 and 207 of 1976 (R) have been heard together and this judgment disposes of all these writ cases. C.W.J.C. No. 205 of 1976 (R)

(2.) The petitioner, Niranjan Maiti, in his petition has prayed for quashing the order dated the 4th Sept,1976 (Annexure-5) passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhalbhum, at Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 1) acting as Authority appointed under S. 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), directing him to pay Rs. 1,296/- as arrears of wages and Rs. 500/- by way of compensation, to Kanhai Munda, respondent No. 2.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 has made the direction for making the above payments to respondent No. 2 without giving him an opportunity to produce his witnesses and without even examining the witnesses for respondent No. 2 in his presence, It is further alleged that in response to the notice which had been served on the petitioner by respondent No. 1, he filed a show-cause stating that respondent No. 2 did not work for a single day for him during the year 1975-76 and so far as respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were concerned, they did work for him, but only occasionally during the said year and they had been paid their wages in full according to the rates fixed under the Act. When the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 1, while he was present in the Dakbungalow at Bahragora, he found that several other agriculturists had also been noticed and were present there. Respondent No. 1 asked all the parties to settle their differences mutually and to facilitate the same, he adjourned the hearing of the cases to 26-7-76, but on that day also, the hearing was adjourned to 4-9-76. In the meantime respondents Nos. 3 to 5 individually swore affidavits stating that they had been paid their wages fully and they had no dispute with the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 1 on 4-9-76 also and it was on that date that he filed his show-cause together with the affidavits of respondents 3 to 5. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 did not examine any of the claimants or witnesses. Even the Labour Inspector and the Mukhiya were not examined as witnesses and they did not make any statement in the presence of the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner was ready with his witnesses in support of his defence, particularly with respect to the fact that respondent No. 2 had not worked even for a single day for him in the year, 1975-76. It is said that respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order in utter disregard of the legal procedure and the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the claim was barred by limitation and this fact had not been taken in to account by respondent No. 1.