Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Anju Dkhar And Anr on 9 May, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010084262022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2928/2022
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2: THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING
HQ 51 SUB AREA CAMP
NARANGI MILILITARY STATION
C/O. 99 APO
SATGAON
GUWAHATI-781027 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
VERSUS
ANJU DKHAR AND ANR
IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ALONGWITH 60 CONTRACT WORKERS,
C/O. SHANKAR BASFORE, S/O. LT. SHRI JAGDISH BASFORE, AMSING
JORABAT, P.O. SATGAON, GUWAHATI, ASSAM-721027.
2:THE PROPRIETOR/PARTNER
M/S LOKENATH BUILDERS
ARMY CONTRACTOR
REP. BY SHRI GAUTAM MITRA
PARTNER AND SHRI MADAN PAUL
PARTNER
ALIPUDUAR JUNCTION
RAILWAY BAZAR
JALPAIGURI
WEST BENGAL-736123
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 09.05.2022 Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners.
2. A Contract Agreement for conservancy service in Guwahati Military Station for the period from 25.08.2020 to 24.08.2021 was entered into on 24.08.2020 between the petitioner no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 as the Contractor, pursuant to publication of a tender for conservancy service at Guwahati Military Station and acceptance of the tender of the respondent no. 2. A claim application dated 03.06.2021 was filed by the respondent no. 1 in a representative capacity stating that the respondent no. 1 is espousing the cause of a total of 60 nos. of labourers, who came to be engaged under the afore- stated Contract Agreement. In the said claim application which was numbered as G.R. no. 68/2021, the respondent no. 1 had inter alia raised an issue that the labourers were paid wages at less than minimum rates of wages for the period from 09.05.2019 to 31.12.2020 while working as Safai Karamchari/Cleaner [Conservancy] under the Contractor i.e. the respondent no. 2. The claim was to the effect that the labourers were entitled to Rs. 534/- per day but were paid Rs. 330/- per day for the period from 09.05.2019 to 31.12.2020. The petitioners herein have challenged an order dated 21.03.2022 passed in claim application, G.R. no. 68/2021 by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1984-cum- Regional Labour Commissioner, Guwahati [Central].
3. Mr. Gupta, learned CGC has submitted that the impugned order was Page No.# 3/3 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner in contravention of the principles of natural justice. One of the contentions raised by Mr. Gupta is that before the passing the impugned order, the Authority did not follow the procedure laid down in Sub-section [3] of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1984. It is his contention that the Authority in an arbitrary manner and without taking into consideration any documentary evidence, has directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 11,78,736/- towards difference of wages along with 10 times compensation of the said difference amounting to Rs. 1,17,87,360/-. It is also his contention that the petitioner no. 2 was not allowed to adduce evidence as per the procedure and furthermore, none of the prosecution witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner no. 2.
4. Issue notice of motion, returnable in 6 [six] weeks.
5. Mr. Gupta, learned CGC shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with A/D within 5 [five] working days from today.
6. Having regard to the above projections made on behalf of the petitioners, it is provided that till the returnable date, the impugned order dated 21.03.2022 shall remain stayed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant