Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 10541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24947 of 2018 ======================================================
1. Ridhi Nath Thakur and Anr Son of Shyam Sundar Thakur resident of Village P.O. - Barsam, P.S. - Rudrapur, District - Madhubani
2. Naveen Thakur Son of Ridhi Nath Thakur resident of Village P.O. - Barsam, P.S. - Rudrapur, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors 2. The Collector, Madhubani.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur. 4. The Labour Superintendent, Madhubani.
5. The Labour Enforcement Officer, Jhanjharpur.
6. Govind Thakur Son of Sita Ram Thakur Village - Kanhauli, P.O. P.S. -
Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s ======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Md. Ghulam Mustafa, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh GP 26 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-03-2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the payment of Wages Act are wholly without jurisdiction. The Officer has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested with him.
2. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the order passed by the concerned authority dated 21.08.2018 which reflects that the authority has treated the carpenter who were given a contract to build windows and doors and plyboard partitions as workmen. From the order, it is also reflected that the contract was not for the workmen but for the construction of the doors, windows, building partitions and chowkis. The doors and windows were fixed for a cost of Rs. 1,48,000, plyboard partition for Rs. 1,000, chowkis for Rs. 500 and there was no payment required to be made to the respondents as workmen. In view thereto, it is submitted that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act would have no application and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer deserved to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the concerned respondent admits that he is a contractor who had undertaken the work and for the said purpose, he had employed five persons. Thus, he submits that the persons employed by him would be workmen and would be entitled to minimum wages.
4. I have considered the submission. Payment of Minimum Wages Act 1948 will have only an application where a person is a workmen employed by the employer. The employer would be required to make payment for the work done by him. In the present case, the respondent or his employees cannot be said to be a workmen as the petitioner has given a contract for construction of certain furnitures and doors and windows. The rate of payment was also with reference to the constructed doors and other furnitures as above. The employer and employee relationship does not exist between petitioners and respondent.
5. In view thereof, the concerned S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Minimum Wages Act and impose penalty on the petitioner. The order dated 21.08.2018 being without jurisdiction is void ab initio. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside.
6. The writ petition is allowed. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
Sachin/-
Item No. 58 AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date
