IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17458 of 2009 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THRUGH GANGA PRASAD YADAV, T.D.M., B.S.N.L. DALTONGANJ S/O LATE DAHU PRASAD YADAV, R/O VILL-KENDUAR, P.S- AMARPUR, DISTT- BANKA, BIHAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), PATNA 3. THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), DEHRI ON SONE, DISTT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) ----------- 2. 06.01.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Bharat Sanchar Nigam and for the Union of India. The petitioner is a government company registered under Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act. It is aggrieved by the order dated 27.3.2009 of the Regional Labour Commissioner cum Authority under the Minimum Wages Act dated 26.3.2009 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,30,668/- for disbursement of minimum wages to the employees concerned. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not come under any item of Schedule I and II to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and therefore the order is completely without jurisdiction. It is next submitted that it was for the workmen to prove that they were working as contract labour and had not been paid minimum wage. The onus has wrongly been cast upon the petitioner. In exercise of powers of judicial review, this Court shall not permit the petitioner to assail the impugned order on grounds which were not raised by it before the Authority below. An issue not raised and not decided cannot be a ground legitimately to unsettle an order. Issues of jurisdiction are to be taken at the very first instance by the aggrieved. It does not appear from the impugned order or pleadings in the writ 2 application that the objection with regard to jurisdiction sought to be taken in the writ application was ever raised before the Authority. In any event of the matter, this Court has grave doubts if the contention of the petitioner is correct. Being a government company, Under Section 617 of the Companies Act, the Court is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner shall in any event fall under the “local authority” mentioned in Item 6 of Part I of the Schedule. The proceedings were started on an application made by the Labour Enforcement Officer under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act after he inspected the premises and found that 92 workers were paid less than the minimum rate of wages. Notices were issued to the petitioner and it was directed to produce complete records in connection with the engagement of contractors for the period specified but it failed to do so. Only a bald statement was made that the persons concerned were not engaged by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to furnish even Form XII register confirming the date of commencement/completion of work. The authority therefore came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to furnish materials before it in support of its claim that the workers were not engaged by it. The inspection report of the Labour Enforcement Officer therefore remained un-rebutted. The workers produced by the Labour Enforcement Officer in support of the assertion were refused to be cross-examined by the petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by them to counter the version of the employees. On the contrary irrelevant documents were furnished. The authority has observed that 3 despite being a Government Department relevant documents were not being produced by the petitioner on one pretext or other which also delayed finalization of the claim application. They were given opportunity to produce documents or evidence to contradict the evidence but they asserted that they did not wish to file anything further. The Court is satisfied that the petitioner had more than adequate opportunity to contest the claim in the court below but willfully and voluntarily it did not do so. There is no denial in the pleadings of the writ application also on these findings of fact recorded in the impugned order. The writ petition is wholly frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with imposition of costs. However, the Court refrains from doing so. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)