Point of Law : when a statute gives a right and provides a forum of adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the performance of the rights has to be enforced in that specified manner.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. Although these writ appeals have arisen out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.06.2019[WP(C) 2486/2016, WP(C) 2570/2016, WP(C) 2808/2016, WP(C) 3423/2016 and WP(C) 4049/2016] and since the matter is common, these writ appeals are being disposed of by a single order here as well, but in fact we would be referring to writ appeal No. 199/2019.

3. The writ appellant/petitioner in Writ Appeal No.199/2019 before this Court is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has been carrying on the business of wholesale food grains. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are again the proprietors of firms engaged in the same business. During the course of their business, the writ appellants/petitioners had to undertake the exercise of loading and unloading of food grains in transport vehicles and for which purposes the company engages the services of labourers from the market.

4. The Government of Assam, in exercise of its powers under Section 3(1)(a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, vide its Notification dated 25.02.2011 has passed an order fixing the minimum wages of different categories of workers employed in the employment of loading and unloading in the State of Assam. The appellants were not paying wages to the workers (engaged in loading and unloading of food grains), as per the above Notification. The respondent No.3 in the writ petitions, who is the Labour Inspector, after inspection, moved applications before the authority under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 under the powers given to an Inspector under Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act. On receipt of the applications by the Inspector, cases were registered as LPW Case No.9/2012; LPW Case No.10/2012 and LPW Case No.12/2012 by the Labour Commissioner. Although the Labour Inspector was present before the authority, yet inspite of notice, the owner/employer, i.e. M/s Century Mercantile Private Limited, the writ appellant/ petitioner in Writ Appeal No.199/2019 before this Court, remained absent. The matter thereafter proceeded ex-parte. After examining all the witnesses, the Assistant Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the workers, who were engaged in the establishment of loading and unloading of goods, are entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,57,187/- in addition to other amounts.

5. This order was put to challenge before the learned Single Judge in writ petitions by the present appellants.

6. The learned Single Judge, however, has dismissed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge came to the finding that an application was filed by the Labour Inspector before the concerned authority and the Labour Inspector had issued notice to the writ appellants/ petitioners but no objections were filed before the Labour Inspector and the writ appellant/petitioners remained absent throughout the proceedings before the concerned authority under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and consequently the cases against the writ appellants/petitioners were heard and decided ex-parte against them. Since all the evidence show that the petitioners were giving the workers less than the minimum wages, their contention was not accepted. The Court thereafter considered that since there is a provision of appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and this remedy is available to the writ appellants/petitioners, the writ appellants/ petitioners can avail this remedy by filing an appeal. The writ petitions were dismissed by common judgment & order dated 20.06.2019. This judgment & order of the learned Single Judge is now under challenge before us in the writ appeals.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the writ appellants/petitioners Mr. O.P.