DHANNOO LAL Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is agriculturist. Respondent No. 2 was employed with him as an agricultural labourer. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner assails the order dated May 30, 1985 (Annexure-E) passed by the SDO Seoni Malwa in exercise of his powers as Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. By the impugned order, the S. D. O. directed that as the Respondent No. 2 was not paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 7. 65 p. per day, he should be paid total outstanding wages of Rs. 3078/- plus ten times compensation on the said amount, worked out to Rs. 30,780/ -.

(2.) SHRI V. S. Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 had personally appeared before the S. D. O. alongwith the petitioner and submitted an application in writing on May 24, 1985 (Annexure-D) stating that he had received the arrears of minimum wages and as there existed no dispute he did not wish to prosecute the case. The S. D. O. in the impugned order in paragraph 2 has stated that on June 14, 1984 the petitioner got an application filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 for withdrawing the case. The S. D. O. did not permit the withdrawal of the case and passed the order on merits.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the order sheet dated June 14, 1984 in which the presence of the petitioner as also of Respondent No. 2 has been duly recorded and the fact, of filing of compromise petition has also been mentioned. On the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that since the Respondent No. 2 had made an application for withdrawal of the application, the Sub-Divisional Officer could not have decided the case on merits. Even in this petition, despite service of notice by ordinary mode and a special notice by post card, Respondent No. 2 has not appeared to contest the petition.