An employer is entitled to notice of allegations of non-payment of minimum wages and an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal before an order can be passed against him under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act.

Y. V. ANJANEYULU, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22-7-1986 of the 1st respondent herein in M W No. 102/86. By the aforesaid order the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,244,66 ps. representing minimum wage allegedly short paid in respect of 530 workers The 1st respondent also required the petitioner to pay a like sum of Rs. 14,244-66 paise by way of compensation under Section 20 (3) of the Minimum Wages Act ("the act" fof Short ). The relevant facts m ay be noticed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is engaged in the business of tobacco grading. The business is carried on at Medarametla village in Prakasaam District. For the purpose of grading the tobacco, the petitioner engages a large number of workers. The minimum wage payable to graders is fixed from time to time by the government by issue of orders G O Ms. No. 467 dated 7-7-1982 issued by the government required the payment of minimum wage of Rs. 10. 12 paise to all graders etc. This G O continued to be in vogue till September, 1936. There is no dispute concerning the payment of minimum wages by the petitioner to the workmen for tho period from July, 1982 to Autust, 1985. It does not also appear that there is any dispute regarding the payment of minimum wage by the petitioner to the workmen for the month of October, 1985 and the succeeding months. Curiously the dispute relates to one single month in September, 1985.

( 3 ) THE petitioner paid the wages to the Workmen relating to the month of september, 1985 on 9-10-1985, 10-10-1985 and 11-10-1985. It is said that the payment of Wages on 9-10-1985 was made in the presence of D Moulali, assistant Labour Officer, Chinaganjam. It is also stated that substantial portion of the wages was paid on that very date. A small portion of the wages was paid to the workers on 10-10-1985 and 11-10-1985 as these workers did not report on 9-10-1985 to receive the wages there is no dispute that when the wages were paid on 10-10-1985 and 11-10-1985 the Assistant Labour Officer was not present. It does not, however, appear that there is any statutory provision requiring the employers to pay the wages in the presence of the authorities under the Act, although for reasons of convenience and careful implementation of the orders concerning the payment of minimum wages the Assistant Labour Officers were informed regarding the dates of payment and the officers make it convenient to be present on the dates of payment. This is largely done to ensure that the employers pay the full amount of wages fixed by the Government.

( 4 ) THE Assistant Labour Officer, ongole, Respondent No 3 herein, filed a claim petition before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1st respondent herein, stating that on 9-10-1985 the petitioner paid the wages to workmen for the month of September, 1985 at the stipulated rate of Rs. 10-12. It was also admitted that on 10-10-1985 and 11-10-85 payment was made at the rate of Rs. 10-12. It is, howerer, alleged that after the payment was made to the workmen at the above rate, the petitioner collected Re 1-62 baek from each workman through the maistries employed. On receiving the claim petition from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent herein put the petitioner on notice and required him to show cause why he should not be directed to make good the amounts allegedly collected back from the workmen and also direct the petitioner to pay compensation equal to ten times of wage short paid. The petitioner denied the allegations and asserted that the full wage was paid to the workers for the month of september, 1985 and no part of it was recovered back. The 1st respondent declined to accept the petitioner s explanation and eventually held that the petitioner ought to pay to the workmen rs 14,244-66 representing the minimum wages for September 1985 forcibly recovered from the workers. The 1st respondent also directed the petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs. 14,24466 under S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document