Vinod Kumar Chourasia vs Labour Inspector and Another

Rajendra Menon and Vimla Jain, JJ.—Challenging the orders-Annexure P/1 dated 1.6.2002 and P/4 dated 26.8.2002, passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act-Labour Court, Balaghat, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner was granted a contract for the purpose of executing the work of maintenance of certain roads by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B & R), Division No. 1, Balaghat, on 26.6.1996. The total amount of the contract was Rs. 50,000/- and for the purpose of execution of the contract, petitioner engaged about 23 labourers. When the Inspector appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 inspected the establishment of the petitioner, it was found that less payment has been made to the labourers and the 23 workers were found to have been paid amount below the notified minimum wages. It was found that there is breach of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and, therefore, the Inspector instituted a claim before the competent authority u/s 20(3) and claimed a sum of Rs. 17,848/-, as difference of the salary and further claimed the maximum penalty to the extent of ten times the claim amount. It is seen from the records that inspite of notice when the claimant and his Advocate remained absent and did not file their reply. On 22.7.2000, ex-parte proceedings were drawn and by the impugned order the direction has been issued for making payment of the sum of Rs. 17,848.80 alongwith penalty i.e. ten times the amount totalling to Rs. 1,78,488/-. Aggrieved by the order directing payment of the difference of the amount of minimum wages and the penalty, this writ petition has been filed.

Shri R.N. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, taking us through the proceedings held before the competent authority as is contained in the order-Annexure P/3, tried to emphasize that ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner without any justification.

Attributing some lapse on the part of his Counsel in not informing the petitioner about the proceedings, it is stated that the order passed behind the back of the petitioner, without hearing him is unsustainable and, therefore, interference into the matter is sought for. It is stated that even the application filed for setting aside the ex-parte order has been rejected without proper consideration.

Shri Jaideep Singh, learned Counsel for the State, refuted the aforesaid and points out that as the petitioner did not file the reply and kept on asking time for a considerable period, the authorities have acted in accordance to law and the same does not warrant any interference.

During the course of hearing of this writ petition Shri R.N. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, also made an alternate submission to the effect that if for any reason this Court comes to the conclusion that the determination of the claim is correct, then imposition of the extreme penalty of ten times the claim amount may be reconsidered and interference to that extent made in this writ petition.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that the Labour Inspector, Balaghat instituted the proceedings u/s 20(3) before the competent authority on 31.3.1999. After due notice the petitioner appeared through his Counsel on 16.9.99 and thereafter either remained absent or kept on seeking time on more than ten occasions upto 22.7.2000 and, therefore, on 22.7.2000 the competent authority proceeded ex-parte in the matter. Even after ex-parte proceedings were drawn on 22.7.2000, the petitioner did not care to find out from the office of the competent authority for more than two years as to what has happened in the proceedings. The impugned order was passed on 26.8.2002 and till then the petitioner did not care to find out as to what is happening in the proceedings. Merely because the Counsel did not inform the date petitioner is not absolved of his responsibility in diligently prosecuting the matter. The default of the petitioner in remaining quiet and not inquiring about the proceedings from the office of the competent authority from 22.7.2000 upto 1.6.2002 when the case was closed for orders cannot be excused and it is a case where the petitioner has not given any reasonable justification for the default caused by him in not appearing before the competent authority and justifying his action.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings drawn ex-parte and, therefore, in adjudicating the claim and directing payment of Rs. 17,848/- as the difference of salary, the competent authority has not committed any error and to that extent interference into the order is not called for.

However, the second alternative submission made by Shri R.N. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, warrants consideration for the simple reason that the extreme penalty of ten times the sum of claim is imposed and before doing so the petitioner was not noticed or heard. That apart, when the contract itself was for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,78,488/- was not warranted. The penalty should have been imposed in a reasonable manner and this having not been done, it is a fit case where interference into the quantification of the penalty should be made by this Court. On evaluating the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that for the default committed by the petitioner, imposition of a penalty to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) would be enough and would meet the ends of justice. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in part. Even though the impugned order passed directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 17,848/- is maintained, imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,78,488/- is quashed and instead petitioner is directed to deposit a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand). The amount be deposited with the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.