HASSAN JAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash annexure " 6 " an order date 29-8-1977 passed by respondent No. 1 by which he directed the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs. 535. 50 P. to respondent No. 3 under different counts.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under S. 20 of the Minimum Wages act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before respondent No. 1 saying inter alia, that he was an agricultural labour of the petitioner and worked as such for four years beginning from june, 1972 to September, 1976. Further according to him, he was paid rupees two per day as against the prescribed wages of Rs. 4. 50 per day and Re. 1 for meal everyday. He also claimed that he was entitled to bonus at the rate of 1 quintal of paddy per year. The petitioner appeared and contested the claim made by respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner respondent No. 3 never worked as his labour and as such there was no question of making payment less than the prescribed wages. The fact that an agricultural labour was entitled to get bonus under the Act was also challenged.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, held that respondent No. 3 did work as an agricultural labour under the petitioner for four years. It also held that respondent No. 3 was paid only Rs. 2 per day as against Rs. 4. 50. Fuith;r according to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 3 was not given meal or Re. 1 per day in lieu of meal. It, therefore, allowed the claim of respondent No. 3 to the extent of Rs. 256. 60 P. towards arrears of wages for 103 days. It also allowed Rs. 103 in lieu of one meal per day at the rate of Re. 1 per meal. Respondent no. 1 was of the opinion that an agriculture labour was entitled to bonus also, but the quantum of which was 11/2 quintals of paddy every year. It, there fore, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 150 as bonus for the year 1975-76 to respondent No. 3. It also allowed rs. 25 as compensation to respondent No. 3 on account of delayed payment of prescribed wages. The petitioner in these circumstances has come to this Court challenging the order as contained in Annexure