JAI PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merits of the case.

(2.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the writ Petitioner on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act with the aid of the State amendment by which Sub-clause 6 has been inserted to provide an appeal by any employer or worker aggrieved by any direction made under Sub-section (3) by an authority appointed under Sub-section (1), on an application made under Sub-section (2), may prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of the direction given in the impugned order.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently submitted that the Appellant was never served with the notice, which is apparent from Annexure-1, which clearly indicates that Appellant was transferred from the place of his posting and he was a public servant posted as Panchayat Sewak only. It is also submitted that the work was completed on 24.03.2003 whereas the claimant-workers claimed that they worked from 26.2.2002 to 31.3.2003. Therefore, when work itself was not in existence the workers could not have worked under the employment of the Appellant and, therefore, the award passed by the authority under Minimum Wages Act is absolutely illegal and contrary to the facts. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the Appellant submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act but that has been wrongly rejected; therefore, the Appellant is challenging both the orders, the order of awarding of minimum wages to the applicants-respondents as well as the order of rejecting of the application of the Appellant seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order passed by the authority under Minimum Wages Act.