SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. PRAHLAD RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been claimed, all these writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order. By these writ petitions, common order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Sikar (for short 'the Authority') on October 9, 2007 has been challenged.

(2.) It is a case where private respondents preferred an application before the Authority to allow them benefit of minimum wages. It was stated that the Public Health & Engineering Department (PHED) engaged petitioners under the Self Financial Scheme to be run by the respective Gram Panchayat for regulating water supply. They were engaged to work as Pump Driver. Since the petitioners were not extended benefit of minimum wages, they were left with no option but to approach the Authority. The claims so preferred by the private respondents were accordingly allowed.

(3.) Leaned counsel for petitioners State submits that respondents employees were never engaged by them. In fact, they worked under the Self Financial Scheme run by the Gram Panchayat. If at all they were engaged, then by the Gram Panchayat, thus no control by the State Government regarding their engagement and other service conditions including the wages payable to them. The Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as party respondent and, at the same time, ignoring the non-existence of relationship of employee or employer, impugned order has been passed by the Authority.