SHISHPAL Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per office report, service on the respondents is complete. No one has come forward so far to defend the petition despite last opportunity to file written statement given by the interim order dtd. 17/7/2018. Since none has appeared for the respondents and they stand served, they are proceeded against ex-parte.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case on the ground that the matter is covered by the decision dtd. 26/8/2015 passed in Rakesh and another Vs. The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and others, CWP No. 17771 of 2015 (Annex.P-6).

(3.) I have read my judgment and order dtd. 26/8/2015 in Rakesh (supra) and find that the question of jurisdiction and maintainability is verily the same regarding the application in Form 7-A presented under Sec. 21 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for recovery of wages by the respondents/farm labour stated to be working on the agricultural fields of the present petitioner and would deem it appropriate to pass similar order as in the aforesaid case. In Rakesh case the claim was not for payment of minimum wages but non-payment of wages agreed upon by farmer and labour for work done. Such a claim is not maintainable before the Controlling Authority under the 1948 Act. The position is the same here. However, instead of simply allowing the petition and leaving the workers confounded I had thought it necessary and expedient to transmit the file from one to the other to preserve remedy, other than a protracted civil suit for recovery of money and save time, money and energy the better course would to get the matter settled by the Labour Court exercising territorial jurisdiction, observing: