Shri Krishna Institute of Engineering and Technology and Another vs Presiding Officer and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Petitioners have filed C.M. No. 19433-CII of 2013 praying for stay of further proceedings before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The revision petition stands adjourned sine die to await decision in L.P.A. No. 1753 of 2012. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, instead of hearing this application, the main case is taken up for hearing. Heard.

Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P/20) passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Kurukshetra (in the true copy of the impugned order, no date of decision is mentioned, but as per the certified copy thereof, the impugned order is dated 16.11.2012), whereby application filed by the petitioners for rejection of petition, has been dismissed.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that respondent No. 2 moved an application through one Sh. Shalinder Chahai claiming himself to be the President of Shri Krishna Institute of Engineering & Technology and Shri Krishna Polytechnic Non-teaching Employees Association before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Upon notice, the petitioners appeared and moved an application for rejection of the application on the ground that the application before the Authority under the Act is not maintainable. Vide impugned order dated 16.11.2012, the Authority under the Act has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the application filed by respondent No. 2 is not maintainable as it has not been filed by the registered Union. Learned counsel further submits that some of the employees have given affidavits stating that they have not filed any such application. Learned counsel further submits that the association has already raised an issued in C.W.P. No. 10280 of 2012 which was dismissed on 28.05.2012 by the learned Single Judge of this Court and L.P.A. against the same is also stated to be pending, but no document is on record with regard to L.P.A.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Admittedly, application has been filed on behalf of the association by one Sh. Shalinder Chahai claiming himself as the President of the Association. It is also admitted fact that C.W.P. No. 10280 of 2012 was filed by the Association which has been dismissed by this Court on 28.05.2012. The said writ petition was for asking the de-affiliation of the institution. While dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has specifically mentioned that some of those grievances which the petitioner members of the Union were relating to the service conditions could be best redressed before the statutory authority constituted for the respective purposes. It means that liberty has been granted to the Association to pursue the matter before the competent authority. Here is a case where the Authority under the Act is considering their grievances.

The objection of the petitioners that u/s 20(2) of the Act only registered trade union can file the application before the Authority, appears to be misconceived. Section 20(2) of the Act reads as under:--

Claim. (1) x x x x

(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under Sub-section (3):

Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable:

Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

Perusal of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that not only the person who has been authorised but even "any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub Section 1 of the Act" may apply to such Authority. The expression "any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub Section 1 of the Act" is wide enough to include the third person who can move on behalf of the persons who are not being paid minimum wages. The basic object of the Act is to protect poor workers keeping in view that some time the industrialists do not pay the minimum wages and pay substantially low wages and even some-times, the workers are not in a position to approach the competent authority. For that reason, the Legislature has added the provision providing that any person can come to the prescribed authority on behalf of the worker(s) and make a representation for minimum wages to be paid to them.

Now, the issue arises whether the permission of the competent authority was taken by Mr. Shalinder Chahal, alleged President of the Association. Once the Authority has entertained the application under the provisions of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that in that situation by necessary implication, it is presumed that the Authority has granted the permission. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Dismissed.