KUNJBEHARI LAL Vs. REGIONAL ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kunjbehari Lal, a quarry-holder, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Regional assistant Labour Commissioner, Jaipur, who was working as an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) for Alwar area.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows: respondent No. 2 Labour Enforcement Officer, Jaipur, who was incharge of the office of Inspector under the Act, moved an application under section 15 of the Act before respondent No. 1, the Authority appointed under the Act, that the petitioner illegally deducted Rs. 2929. 54 Paise from the wages of the employees employed by him at his quarries. This claim was raised by the Labour Enforcement Officer for a period from may, 1965 to September, 1965. The ground on the basis of which this claim was made by the said officer was that the State Government had fixed the wages under the Minimum Wages Act but the contractor, namely, the petitioner did not pay to the labourers who worked at his quarry at the rates so fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by the government of Rajasthan. The petitioner raised certain preliminary objections before respondent No. 1. One of the objections was that the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute under the provisions of the Act which ought to have been raised under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. The other preliminary objections, which have not been pressed before me, need not be mentioned here. Respondent no. 1, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, decided this objection of the petitioner against him and held that he had jurisdiction to entertain such a claim under the provisions of the Act. It is against this order dated 27th December, 1966 that the present writ application has been filed with a prayer that the order passed by respondent No. 1 may be quashed as the respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain any claim of respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) THE only question that has been urged before me is that the labour working at the quarry of the petitioner was of casual nature that was employed for the purpose of crushing or breaking those pieces of stones which were not used for building purposes. According to the petitioner, mostly females were engaged by him who used to work only for two hours in a day and that too at their sweet will when they could make themselves free after finishing their house-hold work and therefore they were paid piece-rate wages. It is also averred by the petitioner that this work was done merely as an incidental work to the main mining operation and therefore those employees who were crushing or breaking the stones were not in the regular employment of the petitioner and were not working daily at the quarry. It is also averred that the Government of the State of Rajasthan by a notification dated 24th of February, 1965 had fixed minimum wages at Rs. 60/- per month or rs. 2-31 np. per day for those employees who were engaged on daily wage system but no minimum piece rate wage was fixed by the Government under the minimum Wages Act. The employees engaged by the petitioner did not claim the minimum wages as fixed by the Government of Rajasthan and did not move any authority under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. It was the respondent No. 2, the Labour enforcement Officer, Jaipur, who was working as an Inspector under the Payment of Wages Act and who raised this claim after the expiry of six months from the date of the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan under the Minimum wages Act fixing the minimum wages of the labourers. According to the petitioner, this claim was made before respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2 on 10th of march, 1965 which date falls outside the period of limitation fixed under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act for making any claim to get the minimum wages. In this manner, it is contended that the respondent No. 2 wanted to by-pass the provisions of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act under which he could not put up his claim as being time-barred and now wants to get things which he could not have otherwise got under the Minimum Wages Act,