THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.23551, 23552, 23555, 23556 And 23558 of 2009 3rd November 2009 1. W.P.No.23551 of 2009 Between: Potnuru Sundara Rao …PETITIONER AND The Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam and one other. …RESPONDENTS 2. W.P.No.23552 of 2009 Between: Thammanna Lakshmana Rao …PETITIONER AND The Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam and one other. …RESPONDENTS 3. W.P.No.23555 of 2009 Between: V.V.Govinda Rajulu …PETITIONER AND The Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam and one other. …RESPONDENTS 4. W.P.No.23556 of 2009 Between: Bora Ammanna Rao …PETITIONER AND The Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam and one other. …RESPONDENTS 5. W.P.No.23558 of 2009 Between: V.Sriramaraju …PETITIONER AND The Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam and one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.23551, 23552, 23555, 23556 And 23558 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Assistant Labour Officer, Amudalavalasa, submitted a complaint before the first respondent herein. The allegation was that the petitioners paid wages to the employees, less than the prescribed minimum wages. The cases were taken up and numbered by the first respondent in the year 2006. Petitioners filed applications before the first respondent with a prayer to dismiss the cases. The basis for the same is that the employees who were mentioned in the complaints submitted by the second respondent have filed affidavits to the effect that they are being paid emoluments in excess of the minimum wages. The first respondent passed individual orders dated 30.09.2009 rejecting the applications. Hence, these Writ Petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Labour. The course of action adopted by the petitioners is untenable. It is not a case where the petitioners allege that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases. If that were to be so, they ought to have filed Writ Petitions challenging the very jurisdiction of the first respondent. The affidavit as well as the petition filed by the petitioners are only to the effect that the employees are being paid adequate wages. This is purely a question of fact and it needs to be decided after conducting enquiry or trial. It is only where the pure questions of law as to the jurisdiction are involved, that the proceedings can be terminated without the necessity of conducting trial. If the intention of the petitioners is to ensure that the proceedings are given a quietus at the earliest, that can be achieved by requiring the first respondent to expedite the hearing all the matters, since three years have already elapsed. Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to take up the cases instituted against the petitioners forthwith and dispose of the same after conducting trial and giving opportunity to both the sides; within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 3rd November 2009 RRB