ANIL AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting question which arises for adjudication in this writ application is as to whether the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant belonging to the petitioner will come within the jurisdiction of the Central Government and/or State Government for the purpose of fixing and regulating the Wages of its Employees working with the plant, in question. The facts are not in dispute which are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner Anil Agrawal, who is the proprietor of M/s. Agrawal Minerals, Bar-ganda, P.O. Giridih, District Giridih (T), runs the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant at Ma-heshmunda. The petitioner is also a lessee with respect to certain minor minerals (Stone Boulders) under the lease granted by the State of Bi-har which is situated in the district of Giridih. Labourers are separately engaged both in the Mines for extracting stone boulders as well as at his crusher plant at Maheshmunda and the wages of the employees working with the plant are being paid in terms of the notification issued by the State Government from time to time under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The further case of the petitioner is that the Stone Breaking and Crushing Plant of the petitioner is situated far away from the lease hold premises and the said plant is not being used for deposit-ing refuse from the mine and/or any operation in connection thereof is being carried on by the owner of the plant. The respondent No. 4, namely, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) issued a letter dated May 2, 1986 directing the petitioner to rectify the irregularities pointed out in the inspection report on the presumption that the stone crushing activities include mine in terms of Section 2(i)(j) (ix) of the Mines Act, 1952 as amended in 1979, a copy of the said let- ter is made Annexure-1 to this writ application. The respondent Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), therefore, issued a notice dated September 24, 1987 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the wages in terms of the provisions of the Act be not realised. A copy of the said notice is made Annexure- 3 to this suit application. Ultimately, a case under the Act was instituted against the petitioner for realisation of the wage under the Act. It may be mentioned here that prior to the institution of the case by the respondent, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) a similar proceeding was initiated and is still pending before the authority of the State Government for realisation of the wages of the employees working with the plant in terms of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State Respondents and/or the Central Government. Accordingly this writ application is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made therein.