IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3040 of 2009 Between: Vakala Satyanarayana S/o.V.Panduranga Rao R/o.Kothagudem Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni collieries Co.Ltd., Kothagudem Khammam District, rep.by its Chief General Manager(Civil) 2 The Additional General Manager (Civil ), The Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District 3 The Enquiry Officer and General Manager (W), The Singareni Collieries Co.ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in conducting an enquiry on the alleged ground of non payment of minimum wages to the workmen engaged by the petitioner for discharging the works awarded to him and in not releasing the final bills amount for the 3 works awarded and completed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without power or jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the enquiry as initiated vide Ref.No.CRP/CVL/P-037/2278 dated 10.6.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner executed various works entrusted to him by the respondents Company. A notice came to be issued to the petitioner by the respondents Company alleging that he resorted to take back part of the wages from the contract labour engaged by him on various contract works. The petitioner submitted explanation to the notice on 29.02.2008. The petitioner submitted representation dated 03.04.2008 requesting for payment of final bill amount. Thereupon, the respondents Company informed him that workers deployed by him on the above contract works complained that he resorted to take back part of their wages after making payment in front of the respondents Company officials. The respondents Company informed the petitioner under letter dated 10.06.2008 with regard to the proposed enquiry on the payment of wages to the workers engaged by him. Notice dated 05.02.2009 also sent to him directing to attend the enquiry on 11.02.2009. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the enquiry initiated vide Ref.No.CRP/CVL/P-037/2278, dt.10.06.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that he completed the works entrusted to him and he paid the wages to the workers as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and therefore, the respondents are under the obligation to settle the final bills. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder: “4. I submit that 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.No.CRP/CVL/P-037/2278, dt.10.06.2008 informed that the explanation dt.29.02.2008 submitted by me found to be not satisfactory, therefore proposed to conduct enquiry and appointed the 3rd respondent vide notice dt.25.12.2008 issued notice stating that enquiry will be conducted on 03.01.2009 and requested me to attend the said enquiry which is being adjourned due to unavoidable circumstances and also due to ill health. Now I am advised that the respondent authorities have no power or authority to withheld the amount payable to me and conduct an enquiry with regard to payment of minimum wages to the workmen engaged by the contractor and it is for the authorities constituted under the provisions of the payment of Minimum Wages Act, therefore, I filed the present writ petition. 5. I submit though the respondents have to clear my final bills for the three works completed by me by the 10th of January, 2008, without paying the final bill harassing me under the guise of false allegations and enquiry under baseless allegations without any power or authority. In view of the non payment of final bills amount I am facing severe financial crises besides facing mental agony. I have paid the minimum wages to the workmen engaged by me in the presence of the officers of the respondent company as well as union leaders and I am having the receipts issued by the Workmen acknowledging the proof of receipt of minimum wages. The notice dt.15/16.02.2008 does not disclose on what basis the said notice was issued. There is no allegation that they have received a complaint from workmen, therefore, it can be said that the respondents are resorting for illegal acts to harass me without any cause of action and without any power or authority. It is absolutely false to say that I resorted to take back part of wages and the same was invented to delay my final bills and to harass me. The respondents have no authority to conduct any enquiry in this regard and it is for workmen to workout their remedies under Sec. 15 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 if they aggrieved and it is for the authorities under the said Act to decide the claim, therefore, the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious.” 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. received notice on behalf of the respondents and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that in case of disputes, they are required to be adjudicated by way reference to the Arbitrator under the terms of contract. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Company. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed the works entrusted to him and therefore, the respondents are under the obligation to settle the final bills submitted by him. He further submits that the show-cause notice issued to him is not based on any material and therefore, proceedings initiated consequent to the notice dated 15/16-02-2008 are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Company submits that the show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner basing on the statements of the workers. Learned Standing Counsel refers the Photostat copies of the statements of the workers filed along with the counter-affidavit. 6. I have gone through the show-cause notice dated 10.06.2008. The show-cause notice does not reflect the statements of the workers. Even reading the statements of the workers, the petitioner paid minimum wages to them in the presence of the authorities of the respondents Company. If the petitioner had taken back part of the wages from the workers, it is outside the scope of contract and also the terms of the agreement, for which, the respondents have no authority to initiate proceedings by issuing show-cause notice. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 10.06.2008. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:06th March, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}