AWADB LAL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Anchal Adhikari, Baniapur, respondent No. 2, dated 26 -12 -1978 and 26 -6 -1979, as contained in Annexure -6 and the proceeding under Sec. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Labour Inspector of Masrakh (Respondent No. 3) in the district of Saran, filed a petition on 21 -6 -1978, before the Circle Officer, Baniapur, respondent No. 2, for action under the Act against the petitioner for realisation of claims of the respondent No. 5 (annexure -1) as agricultural labourer for the period from 10 -2 -1975 to 18 -12 -1977. It was alleged that the respondent No. 6 was paid by the petitioner wages at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per day instead of the prescribed minimum wages of Rs. 5.50 P. per day. For a total period of 1037 days for which the respondent No. 5 worked as a labourer, the petitioner paid to him Rs. 2,074/ - only and thus he did not pay to him a sum of Rs. 3,629.50 P. to which the respondent No. 5 was/is legally entitled to. By yet another petition filed on 21 -6 -1978 (Annexure -2), the respondent No. 3 moved the Circle Officer, Baniapur, respondent No. 2, alleging that the respondent No. 6 worked as an agricultural labourer under the petitioner from 10 -2 -1975 to 5 -12 -77. She was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per(sic)der and not even the minimum prescribed under the Act. Thus, instead of Rs. 5,669.50 P. she was paid only Rs. 2,058/ -, Rs. 3,601.50 P. less than she was legally entitled to. Notices calling upon to show -cause were given to the petitioner who appeared on 30 -11 -1978 and submitted his rejoinder stating that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were not his employees. The respondent No. 5 who is the husband of the respondent No. 6, has raised a false claim with a view to denying to the petitioner his claim upon the mortgage of 18 kathas and 4 dhurs of land for a sum of Rs. 3,900 + 2,000/ -. He also stated that the respondent nos. 5 and 6 raised their respective claims at the instance of one Dina Ahir, who was on litigating terms with Kapildeo Sah (the brother of the petitioner). The petitioner further stated that he is a businessman, he has got four sons, possessed very little landed property for which agricultural labourers were not required. The respondent No. 6 was examined in Claim Case No. 3 of 1978 on 19 -12 -78. Although the petitioner was present he did not cross -examine her. Claim case No. 4 of 1978 was amalgamated with the Claim Case of respondent No. 6 and 26 -12 -78 was fixed as the next date for the evidence and disposal. On 26 -12 -1978 several witnesses were examined. Petitioner filed his appearance but did not take part in the proceeding. The Circle Officer, on the basis of evidence adduced before him accepted the claims of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and passed order under Sec. 29 of the Act ex -parte holding the respondent No. 5 entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,629.50 P. and the respondent no 6 entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,601.50 P. He issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear for making the payment of the claims of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to them in his presence on 15 -1 -1979. On 15 -1 -79 the petitioner filed a petition stating that although he had come with his witnesses yet his evidence was not taken on the previous date and the proceedings were disposed of exparte. Although, the respondent No. 2 did not find the statement of the petitioner acceptable yet he fixed 29 -1 -1979 as the next date for evidence on his behalf and accordingly issued notice to the respondent No. 3. The case, however, was adjourned on some dates and ultimately on 24 -4 -1979 the respondent No. 2 took evidence on behalf of the petitioner. On 26 -6 -1979 the respondent No. 2 heard and finally disposed of the matter holding that he could not find any thing in the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner to rescind and/or modify and/or review the order passed by him and accordingly ordered the petitioner to, pay to the respondent No. 5 a sum of Rs. 3,629.50 P. and to the respondent No. 6 a sum of Rs. 3,601.50 P. and a token compensation of Rs. l/ -each. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking interference in the said two orders and for quashing the proceeding.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions namely, (i) the respondent No. 2 failed to adjudicate on the question of relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 although there has been a specific denial of such relationship by the petitioner; (ii) the respondent No. 2 could not entertain the petition at the instance of the respondent No. 3, who was not appointed by the appropriate Government by a notification in the Official Gazette as provided under Sec. 19 of the Act to act as the Inspector for the local limits within which the respondent nos. 5 and 6 were said to have been employed, and (iii) the respondent No. 2 could not entertain the claim applications on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as they were presented much beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Sec. 20, sub -section (2) proviso of the Act and he has also not recorded his satisfaction on the question that the respondent No. 3 had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period of six months from the date on which the minimum wages became payable.

(3.) The first two contentions of the petitioner, as evidenced by the facts on the record, are not acceptable. The Circle Officer has noticed in the Order date 26 -6 -79 that the Circle Inspector's evidence before him disclosed that when on 18 -12 -77 he visited the agricultural holdings of the petitioner he found the respondent nos. 5 and 6 working. He has also recorded in his order that other witnesses, namely Mirajuddin, Satyadeo Ram and Shivji Yadav stated before him that they had seen the respondent nos. 5 and 6 working as labourers and receiving their wages from the petitioner. Upon this he could legitimately hold that the respondents nos. 5 and 6 were employed as agricultural labourers by the petitioner. There has thus been sufficient evidence on the record to reject the claim of the petitioner that there was no relationship of master and servant between him and the respondent nos. 5 and 6. In the counter affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that Sri Ashutosh Prasad Sinha, Panchayat Supervisor, Baniapur (Saran), respondent No. 4, has been appointed -vide notification No. AC 1048/75 Shram -Niyojan 17/dated 17th January, 1976, under Sec. 19 (1)of the Act for Baniapur Block. The lands in question were/are within the limits of Baniapur Block. Thus, he was competent to move the Circle officer by an application for appropriate action for payment of minimum wages to the agricultural labourers, namely, the respondent nos. 5 and 6. In view of this notification it is not possible to accept the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well.