STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MAHAMANTRI P W D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the panics. This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 221 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned Auard passed In the Judge. Labour Court, Chittorgarh dated January 19. 1988 (Annex-P/3 ). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly staled, arc that the Mahamanlri (Secretary) of the Public works Department Labour Union. Rauatbhata had filed an application under Section 21 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Aci") on June 16. 1987 before the Prescribed Authority i. e. Judge. Labour Court Chittorgarh alleging therein that the names of the workers as per the annexed list who arc working for the last 2 years under the petitioner's Department as daily-wagers, were not paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 14 per day and they claim a total amount of Rs. 5,481 as difference of wages and the grievance of the workers is that they were not paid minimum wages at the revised rate.

(2.) AFTER registration of the claim petition, the prescribed Authority respondent No. 2 fixed (he date for reply of (he petitioners on No\ember 10. 1987 at Camp Rauatbhata. It is contended by the learned Counsel for (he petitioner that perusal of the order-sheet which is annexed to (his writ petition (Annex-P/2) would clearly reveal that no hearing took place on November 10, 1987 before the Prescribed Authority. Further there is no endorsement about the proceedings having taken place on the said date but later on notices were issued to the present petitioners for hearing on December 10, 1987. The petitioners have further contended that perusal of the order-sheet (Annex-P/2) further reveals that there is no mention in the order-sheet with regard to the fact as to whether the Officer-in-charge of the petitioner had received any copy of the claim petition/application filed by respondent No. 1 before the Prescribed Authority alongwith the notices dated December 10, 1987. Since the Assistant Engineer was busy in some famine work he had deputed a representative on his behalf to appear before the Authority and also directed him to move an application for seeking time from the Authority in this regard so that a proper replay could be filed by the Assistant Engineer.

(3.) IT has been further contended on behalf of the petitioner that an application was moved on their behalf before the Prescribed Authority on December 9, 1987 with a prayer for summoning of the record from Chittorgarh so as to enable the Petitioners to file an appropriate reply to the claim petition. This fact is fully borne out from the order sheet dated December 10, 1987. It is contended by Shri Vyas that having taken cognizance of the said application it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have dealt with the same in an appropriate manner by giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which has been denied in the facts of the instant case. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 20 of the Act it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority to have recorded a specific finding regarding the limitation within which the claim petition had been presented before the Prescribed Authority which has not been done in this case. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act clearly stipulates that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount becomes payable: Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant specifies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period.