IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5121 of 2000 KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11812 of 2000 BHOLA KUMAR SINGH @BHOLA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 22.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and learned counsels for the State. No one appears for the respondent- employees despite service of notices and despite earlier filing of power on behalf of Respondent No.3, the applicant before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners have come to this court for quashing of the order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Dehri in Minimum Wages Case No. 1 (M)/1999, by which he has directed the petitioners to pay the wages for the months of September and October, 1999 along with the bonus for the year 1999 and also to allow Respondent Nos. 4 to 31 to join the work and for further consequential directions. At the stage of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer only to the last part of the order, by which the Chairman of the petitioner company, M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Limited and the petitioner, Bhola Kumar Singh alias Bhola Singh, contractor had been ordered to make payment to the first party within 15 days and further to recall/ reinstate them for work immediately. The application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act was filed in the present matter by Respondent No.3, Sidh 2 Nath Singh on 30.12.1999 in which he had made claims for payment of wages under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act on behalf of himself and 27 other workers for the months of September and October, 1999 and further for non- payment of bonus for the year 1998 and also complained that they have been removed from their work. The application was filed against Sri S.P. Sinha, Deputy General Manager of M/s. Sintra Limited and Sri Bhola Kumar Singh, contractor. The allegation was that the said M/s Sintra Limited was associated with M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. and had taken a contract of loading and unloading of cement from the said company and, in turn, M/s. Sintra Ltd. engaged petitioner Bhola Singh as sub- contractor, who was the immediate employer of the employees for payment of salary and bonus for the said period and after their removal from work, the application was filed. On the basis of the said application, notices were issued by order dated 30.12.1999 by the Sub- divisional Magistrate, Dehari, acting as the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, to Sri S.P. Sinha as the Deputy General Manager of M/s. Sintra Ltd. and Bhola Kumar Singh petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.11812/2000 as the contractor. After service of notice, Bhola Singh subsequently appeared and filed his show cause, etc. and ultimately, by the impugned order dated 12.5.2000, the authority came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 3 Sidh Nath Singh and other 27 workers had not been paid the wages for the months of September and October, 1999 along with the bonus for the year in question and accordingly, the direction was issued to the Chairman of Kalyanpur Cement Limited to pay the said amount within 15 days and 3 also to recall/ reinstate them for work expeditiously. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Company not being a party to the proceedings, no direction could have been issued to it or its Chairman in the impugned order. It is submitted that no notice was served upon the company or its Chairman nor the proceedings were initiated against M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. and hence, the order passed in its absence is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It is further argued by learned counsel for the Chairman of the Company that he has to play a limited role in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act and is not concerned directly with the functioning of the Company and thus no direction could have been issued personally to him. It is contended that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act has not been given any power to direct reinstatement/ recall of any employee for work and the only direction he can issue is regarding payment of minimum wages. It is, thus submitted that the Sub-divisional Officer has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in passing the direction for recalling the workmen to work. Learned counsel in this regard also points out that so far as the payment of back wages is concerned, the entire amount due to the worker has already been paid, which is evidenced by Annexure-8 series and thus the grievance of the petitioners in the two cases only remains with respect to the directions having been issued on the Chairman of Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. and also with regard to the direction for reinstatement/ recall of the workers. Learned counsel appearing for the State has sought to 4 support the impugned order stating that in several applications filed by various parties, Sri S.P. Sinha has been shown as the Deputy General Manager both in M/s. Sintra Limited as also M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Ltd. and thus it cannot be said that M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. was not represented in course of the proceedings. However, learned counsel has fairly submitted that the direction regarding reinstatement appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub- divisional Officer acting under the Minimum Wages Act. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. not having been made a party to the proceedings nor any notice having been issued to the said company, no direction could have been issued to it by the impugned orderdated 12.5.2000 passed in the said proceedings. Moreover, notice to Sri S.P. Sinha having been issued in his capacity as Deputy General Manager of M/s. Sintra Ltd. the same cannot be considered as a notice to M/s. Kalyanpur Cements Ltd. To that extent the impugned order is bad and it is, accordingly, quashed. This Court also finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction for reinstatement/ recall of the employees is outside the jurisdiction of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, which can only direct the payment of minimum wages not paid to the concerned employee. Under sub- section (4 A) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, as amended in Bihar, there is a provision that the employer shall not during the pendency of the 5 proceedings arising out of any claim case, take any action against any employee concerned in such claim case by altering to the prejudice of such employee, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceedings; or by discharging, terminating the services in any manner or punishing whether by dismissal or otherwise of such workers, save with the express permission in writing of the Authority before whom the proceeding is pending; but the said provision has no application either at the stage of passing of final order or during the pendency of the present matter since the removal from work had been stated to have taken place even before filing of the application. Thus, there can be hardly any doubt that the direction regarding recall/ reinstatement of the employees could not have been passed under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The said direction is also quashed. These writ applications are, thus, partly allowed to the extent indicated above. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)