RAM KEVVAL CHAUDHARY Vs. KASHI NATH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against an order dated 28-11-1981, passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Minimum Wages Case No. 3 of 80-81 and also the order, dated 6-3-1982, passed by respondent No. 3 (appellate authority) and as contained in Annexure-3, passed Minimum Wages Case No. 21 of 1982, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to give to the respondent No. 1 five maunds of paddy for arrears of minimum wages and five maunds of paddy as his crop in the land alleged to have been given to him as wages for a year of service as ploughmen.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. According to the petitioner he is small farmer having only 9 acres of land in total out of which only 8 acres is agriculturable lands. The petitioner has further asserted that the respondent No. 1 was the labourer of the petitioner and he filed a false case on or about 16-11-1979 before the Labour Inspector being an Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act claiming therein that since middle of June, 1979 he began to work as the ploughmen and in lieu of his service, he was given a piece of land measuring 1 Bighas for his own cultivation. Pursuant to the aforementioned claim, a case was registered by the authorities under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being Case No. 3 of 1981, before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1 in his application enlarge his earlier claim so as to include crops of wheat allegedly sown by him on the same land belonging to the petitioner over which he allegedly harvested paddy crops forcibly. The petitioner having been noticed by the respondent No. 2 to file show cause appeared in the aforementioned case and shown cause inter alia stating therein that the said case was false. The petitioner has further asserted that in the year 1979 the entire block was a drought affected and was declared as such by the Government, but in spite thereof the respondent No. 2 proceeded to hold that the some paddy must have been saved in the fields and 25% of the normal paddy "must be saved, although there was no evidence with regard thereto on records. The petitioner in his aforementioned show cause denied that the res-pondent No. 1 was his ploughman.

(3.) Although the respondent No. 1 claimed merely the paddy alleged to have been grown by him on 11 Bighas of petitioner's land, the respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to pay difference of the amount of paddy to respon- dent No. 1 of the minimum wages and that was payable to him allegedly being 5 maunds of the paddy. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 in the impugned order allowed more that what was claimed by respondent No. 1 and wherefor notice was issued to him and as such the same being violative of the principles of natural justice is vitiated in law.