ARATI JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The issue raised in the present writ application is whether the proceeding initiated under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act in M.W. Case No. 17/02 on the basis of the complaint of the Labour Inspector, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, with allegation of less payment of the wages than the Minimum Wages fixed by State Government against the petitioner is maintainable under the provision of the Minimum Wages Act or the remedy if at all available to the aggrieved party is under the relevant provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948.

(2.) From the contents of the writ application and the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents, it appears that the petitioner had engaged local labourers for the work of digging pond under Kapat Yogna in the Village Viskham of Block Chandankiyari as per the State Government Notification and Guidelines and the Minimum Wages fixed was Rs. 64.61 per day at the relevant point of time, but during inspection by the Labour Inspector, it was found that the labourers were paid less payment than the minimum wages fixed as per the Minimum Wage Act.

(3.) In view of the report enclosed as Annexure-3, which relates to institution of the complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the M. W. Case No. 17/02 was filed under section 20(1) of the said Act. Without going into the merits of the controversy the question raised in the writ petition can be answered as it is no longer res integra being covered by a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 421/03 dated 20th May, 2004 reported in 2004 (3) JLJR 231, wherein it has been held that the authority empowered under section 20(1) is competent to hear and decide any claim arising out of payment of less than minimum wage by an employer to his employee within the area of operation of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: