IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1394 of 2006 SK.KALU @ SK.KALIMUDDIN Son of Sk. Kalimuddin @ Forestor resident of Village amirabad, P.S.-Manihari District-Katihar, at present residing at opposite Manihari National English School, at & P.O. & P.S. Manihari District- Katihar ----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Additional Collector, Katihar, Collectorate Katihar, District-Katihar 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Labour Officer, Manihari Sub Divisional Office, Manihari at & P.O. & P.S.Manihari District-Katihar 4. The Labour Inforcement Officer cum Inspector, Manihari at & P.O.-Manihari District-Katihar 5. Anwar son of Sk, Illiash. 6. Jamila Khatoon wife of Sk. Illiash. Both resident of village Amirabad, Semtola P.O.- Kantakash P.S.-Manihari, District-Katihar -----------Respondents --------------------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Praween Kr. Jaipuriyar, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, G.P.-15 Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-15 ---------------- 3. 02.02.2011 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2004 Annexure-3 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer Manihari-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, in case no. 6 of 2002 whereunder petitioner has been directed to pay respondent no. 5 the arrears of wages of Rs. 7000/- together with fine of Rs. 35,000/-. Aforesaid direction has been made in terms of Sub-section 3 of Section 2 20 of the Minimum Wages Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the complaint of respondent no. 6, who alleged before the authorities that her husband was serving the petitioner as an agricultural labourer but was not paid the minimum wages. The aforesaid order has also been affirmed by the Additional Collector, Katihar under order dated 14.11.2005 passed in Minimum Wages Appeal No. 51 of 2004 which is contained in Annexure-2 to this application. On the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar, petitioner has been served with a notice dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure-1) by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Manihari, District- Katihar asking him to deposit Rs. 7,000/- only without fine of Rs. 35,000/-. 3. Petitioner is challenging the said notice issued in the light of the direction of the Additional Collector. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the initial order dated 30.6.2004 was passed without taking into account the objection of the petitioner dated 19.8.2002 and 18.11.2002 contained in Annexure-5 series whereunder petitioner had categorically raised the question of limitation as the complaint was filed beyond period of six months from the date the amount became payable i.e., after two 3 years of the due date. In terms of the provisions contained in proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 20, the complaint is required to be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the wage became payable. 4. From perusal of the objections dated 19.8.2002 and 18.11.2002 (Annexure-5) series it does not appear that any such objection was raised before the original authority that the claim is barred on the ground of limitation. The landlord having not raised the plea of limitation before the original authority, I am not inclined to entertain such plea for the first time in the writ jurisdiction as it is well settled that plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and should be raised before the fact finding authority. 5. Counsel then placed reliance over the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in the case of Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1980 PLJR 264 (DB) and another judgment of Single judge in the case of Devendra Nath Ghosh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1987 PLJR 1114. 6. Reliance placed on the aforesaid judgments appear to be unnecessary and misplaced in view of the fact that this Court is not disputing the 4 proposition of law that claim for payment of minimum wages barred by plea of limitation cannot be entertained but in the instant writ case such plea is not being entertained as the petitioner landlord never raised such plea before the original authority and he cannot be allowed to raise such plea before this Court in writ jurisdiction. Perusal of the judgment in the case of Bahadur Singh (supra) in Paragraph-7 would show that employer therein had raised the plea of limitation before the original authority. 7. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and consider the plea which was not raised before the original authority. I do not see any merit in the writ application which is accordingly dismissed. Anand Kr. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)