Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajasthan Minerals And Company vs Authority Under Minimum Wages Act And ... on 18 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1994)ILLJ261RAJ
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the ex parte order of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer (hereinafter to be called the Authority) dated January 28, 1985 (Annexure 2) directing the payment of Rs. 9, 168.45 as difference-amount of wages (minimum paid) and Rs. 73,347.60 as compensation under Section 20, Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and also order dated August 25, 1988 (Annexure 3) of the Authority dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the said ex parte order. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.
2. On October 5, 1984 Labour Enforcement Officer (C), Bhilwara (respondent No. 2) (in short the Inspector) filed six applications under Section 20(2) of the Act in the prescribed form for direction to pay the difference of wages arising out of less payment of wages than the minimum and compensation. Their details are as follows:
S No Wages period No. of workers Amount claimed Compensation claimed 1. 19.10.83 to 10 424.00 4240.00 31.10.83 2. 1.3.84 to 23 2174.90 21749.00 31.3.84 3. 1.3.84 to 23 2001.35 20013.50 28.2.84 4. 1.1.84 to 22 2155.40 21554.00 31.1.84 5. 1.11.83 to 10 1102.40 11024.00 30.11.83 6. 1.12.83 to 12 1310.40 13104.00 31.12.83 Total 9168.45 91684.50
All these six cases were consolidated. Despite sufficient service of the notices, the employer (writ petitioner) did not turn up and as such the Authority proceeded ex parte against him. Ex parte order granting Rs. 9168.45 as the difference amount and Rs. 73,347.60 as compensation, total Rs. 82,516.05 in respect of all claim petitions was passed. On March 25, 1985, an application for setting aside this ex parte common order was moved. Despite service of the notices intimating the dates of its hearing, the employer (writ petitioner) did not turn up. As such the application was dismissed by order dated August 25, 1988 (Annex.3)
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notices of the claim petitions and the notice of the application for setting aside the said ex parte common order were not personally served upon the employer (writ petitioner). There is no force in this contention. Para No. 6 of the writ petition runs as under:
"6. That the unfortunate lot of the petitioner is that the partners of the petitioner firm live in Calcutta and their factory in Rajasthan is being looked after by the general power of attorney holder Shri Kashinath Rajgadhia and in the administration again in turn the matter of this labour problems was being handled by one employee Shri Harendra Singh and in the sequence of this all summons and notices whatever were addressed to the petitioner, were received by Shri Harendra Singh, but for reasons best known, he did not bring to the notice of Shri Kashinath Rajgadhia also having received notice from respondent No. 1 or about the initiation of the proceedings, with the result that notwithstanding to be claim being ex facie false did not come to be defended."
4. The first half part of para No. 9 of the writ petition runs as under:
"9. That on coming to know of this an application was filed by Shri Kashinath Rajgadhia purporting to be on behalf of the petitioner and again the same thing happened as it happened earlier, namely, that the notices were sent instead of being sent to the petitioner to Shri Kashinath Rajgadhia and were all received by the same person Shri. Harendra Singh. Of course for the earlier lapse of Shri Harendra Singh disciplinary action has been taken against him, but this time being annoyed by the disciplinary action said Shri Harendra Singh again used to receive the notice and did not bring them to the notice of the petitioner or even to the notice of Shri Kashinath and ultimately left the job even without resigning and misplaced the relevant file...."
Thus the writ-petitioner's own case is that his employee Harendra Singh was looking after the labour problems of his factory. It is not his case that Harendra Singh was not authorised to receive the notices addressed to him and issued in the aforesaid cases. Rule 29 (1), Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 (hereinafter called the Rules) simply requires the Authority to serve upon the employer (writ petitioner) notices in form 9 by registered post to appear before him on the the date specified therein. It is not his case that the notices were not sent to him through registered A.D. post or they were not properly addressed. His case is that the notices were duly received by his employee Harendra Singh but he did not inform him or his general power of attorney holder Kashinath Rajgadhia. Paras No. 2 and 3 of the application dated March 25, 1985 moved for setting aside the order runs as under:
"2. That the summons in the case was sent to the applicant by registered post and the same were received by the clerk of the applicant on 16th November, 1984.
3. That from the first week of the November, 1984 to February, 1985 the applicant was out of station for almost all the time and the concerning clerk was also on the long leave and therefore the applicant or his representative could not be present at the time of hearing."
If this employee did not inform him, he should thank himself for keeping such an employee. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner was not served with the notices of the applications moved under Section 22(2) of the Act as required under Rule 29. When the petitioner was duly served with the notices and failed to appear on the specified date, the Authority was perfectly justified to hear and determine the applications ex parte as provided under Rule 29(2) of the Rules.
5. Admittedly, the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated January 28, 1985 (Annuexure 2) was moved on March 25, 1985 by the petitioner. Power of Shri Shailendra Garg Advocate was filed along with it. Several dates were fixed on this application for its hearing. On July 3, 1986, an application for adjournment was moved for and on behalf of the petitioner. He however, did not appear on the adjourned dates even despite notice of the dates. Consequently, the application for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed on August 25, 1985. The order dated August 25, 1988 (Annexure 3 ) is neither perverse nor contrary to record. It cannot be interfered by this writ court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the ex-parte order dated January 28, 1985 (Annexure 2) on merits also. Firstly, he submitted that all the six claim petitions were time-barred and no affidavit was filed along with any application moved for the condonation of delay. There is no force in this contention. In every claim petition, an application for condonation of delay was moved stating that 'due to over burden of work and large scale of touring and inspection' the claim petition could not be filed in time. As observed above, the petitioner did not turn up despite service of notices. Neither Act nor Rules require filing of an affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay. The Authority was satisfied with the explanation for delay furnished and condoned it as provided in the second proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. This order condoning delay cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to record.
7. Secondly, the order Annexure 2 was challenged on the ground that the Inspector did not see relevant records of the petitioner and incorrect facts relating to the number of workers, their wages and working days have been incorporated in the schedule attached with the claim-petition. The Authority recorded the statement of the Inspector Deepak Jain and considered the statements of 23 workers (Ex.P/1). These are disputed questions of fact. They cannot be entertained in this writ petition.
8. Thirdly and lastly, it was contended that the Authority was not at ail justified to award compensation to the extent of eight times of difference a mount of wages, namely Rs. 73,347.60. There is great force in this contention. No reason has been given in the order Annexure 2 for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 73,347.60. It is not the case of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner disobeyed the provisions of the Act on an earlier occasion also. It is clear from the statement of the Inspector Deepak Jain dated October 23, 1984 that he inspected the mines of the writ petitioner on April 6, 1984 for the first time. He did not disclose that the petitioner's mine was inspected by any authority under the Act earlier. If the Inspector would have inspected the petitioner's mines earlier, the claim of wages and compensation would not have been so high. Under these facts and circumstances compensation to the tune of eight times of the difference-amount of wages appears to be highly excessive and amount of compensation equal to the amount of wages-difference would be quite reasonable and adequate.
9. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 73,347.60 to Rs. 9, 168.45 provided the petitioner pays the difference amount and compensation totalling Rs. 18,336.90 to the workers through money orders within three months from today and if the amount or a part thereof is not paid on account of death or whereabouts not being known or money orders coming back, the same or balance will be deposited within four months from today with the Prescribed Authority as required under Section 22D of the Act. If the aforesaid amount is neither paid nor deposited within the specified time as said, the order Annexure 2 will stand confirmed. To this extent, the order Annexure 2 is modified.