HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19672 of 2002 Date : 04.11.2009 Between : Karnasula Venkat Reddy. …..Petitioner And The Assistant Labour Officer, Circle III, Kakinada & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19672 of 2002 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the order dated 13th March 2002, passed in Case No.M.W.M.P.No.9 of 2002, by the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kakinada. 2. The 1st respondent-Assistant Labour Officer has filed a claim petition before the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, claiming an amount of Rs.5,960/- towards the difference in the minimum wages payable to the 3rd respondent- worker engaged by the petitioner as a Driver. During the inspection made by the 1st respondent into the records of the petitioner on 20th December 1999, it was found that less wages are being paid to the 3rd respondent-Driver. As such, a claim petition was filed to recover such differential amount for the period from 4/99 to 11/99 along with suitable compensation. In the said claim petition filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner herein has filed counter affidavit, disputing the very employment of respondent No.3 as a Driver. Before the authority, for the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer was examined as AW-1 and the petitioner was examined as RW-1 and documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 and A-2 were filed. The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that there is material to show that the 3rd respondent was employed by the petitioner as a Driver and he was not paid the minimum wags, and therefore, allowed the claim for Rs.5,960/- with an equal amount of compensation. 3. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the absence of any material to show that the 3rd respondent was employed by the petitioner as a Driver, the Authority has misread the evidence and allowed the claim petition. Except pleading that the 3rd respondent was not the Driver employed by the petitioner, there was no other material placed by the petitioner to dispute the claim made by the 1st respondent. During the inspection made by the 1st respondent, it was evident from the records that the 3rd respondent was employed by the petitioner as a Driver. In that view of the matter, merely denying the employment of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner cannot deny minimum wags payable to him. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, by recording factual findings, has allowed the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference of this Court. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th November 2009 ajr