IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24047 of 1998 Between: Andhra Pradesh Fibres Ltd. Rep. by its Admn. Manager, Mr.V. Purnachandra Rao, Regd.Off: 28-2-47, Ist Floor, Daspalla Centre, Visakhapatnam-20 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Authority Under Minimum Wages Act, Cum-Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Vizianagaram 2 Asst. Labour Officer, Salur, Vizianagaram District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 06-01-1998 passed in M.W.No.92 of 1995 on the file of respondent No.1-authority. The petitioner is a joint venture unit of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation. Respondent No.2-the Assistant Labour Officer moved an application under Section 20 of the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before respondent No.1 for payment of differential rates of minimum wages for the period from 01-09-1994 to 28-02-1995 of a sum of Rs.5,26,041-30 ps, together with equal amount of compensation, to 447 workers. In response to the notice issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner pleaded that the arrears of differential wages amounting to Rs.5,92,897.35 ps were paid to 435 workmen and that the differential wages in respect of 9 employees, who left the services of the Company, could not be paid due to non-availability of the whereabouts of the said employees. In support of the petitioner’s plea that the arrears of differential wages were paid, the petitioner examined its Factory Secretary and Manager as R.W.1 and four workmen, who received differential wages, as R.Ws.2 to 5. The petitioner also got marked acquittance sheets as Exs.R1 to R7. Respondent No.1 rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that it failed to examine any workman working in four different groups and that out of 12 office staff members, only four were examined. Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended and in my view rightly, that respondent No.1 failed to apply its mind to the evidence produced before it by the Management and rejected the plea of the petitioner on a totally unsustainable ground. Respondent No.1 failed to give any cogent reason to disbelieve the oral evidence of the Secretary and Manager of the petitioner examined as R.W.1. Similarly, respondent No.1 has not given any reason, whatsoever, to reject Exs.R1 to R7, the acquittance sheets, filed by the petitioner, in proof of payment of the differential wages. When there were 447 workmen, it is highly impossible for the petitioner to examine all of them. Indeed none of the workmen had complained to respondent No.1-authority about non-receipt of the differential wages. The proceedings were initiated only at the instance of respondent No.2-Assistant Labour Officer. When the petitioner has produced cogent evidence in support of its plea, respondent No.1 is not justified in ignoring the same on a hyper technical ground that workmen working in 4 groups of the petitioner-factory have not been examined. It ought to have analyzed the evidence adduced by the petitioner through R.Ws.1 to 5, and also perused the documentary evidence Exs.R1 to R16, before reaching its conclusions. The order of respondent No.1, therefore, suffers from patent illegality. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the suggestion of the Court that the Management will implead the Workers’ Union or in its absence some of the workers from each of the four groups in their representative capacity to represent the interests of the workmen. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that the necessary parties, on behalf of the workmen, are impleaded by the petitioner and it shall pass appropriate orders, after due enquiry, within a period of three (3) months. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th November, 2008 vrn