THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.26231, 26232, 26234 AND 26252 OF 1999 COMMON ORDER: While several contentions are raised in these Writ Petitions, Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these four Writ Petitions, would fairly state that the only question which necessitates adjudication is regarding the power of the Commissioner to transfer a case pending before the Joint Commissioner of Labour to the Deputy Commissioner of labour. Learned counsel would submit that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 {“the Act” for brevity}, does not confer any power on the Commissioner to transfer a case from one competent authority to another. It is not in dispute before this Court that both the Joint Commissioner of Labour and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour are competent to decide disputes arising regarding a claim for minimum wages under the Act. While this contention urged by the learned counsel cannot be said to be without merit, it is necessary to note that the petitioners themselves have stated, in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions, that the Joint Commissioner of Labour was not inclined to hear the matter, in which event, the matter had necessarily to be transferred to another authority. Learned counsel would, however, point out that, while the petitioners had asserted the Joint Commissioner’s disinclination to hear the matter, the respondents would deny the said contention in their counter affidavit. Learned counsel would state that this denial would show that the Joint Commissioner was not averse to hear and adjudicate the minimum wages case pending before him. The counter affidavit is not filed by the Joint Commissioner who is said to have expressed his disinclination to hear the matter. This mechanical denial of averments in the writ affidavit, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, reflects the lack of care bestowed in drafting such counter affidavits. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners have themselves stated that the Joint Commissioner was not inclined to hear the matter. In such circumstances, the matter had necessarily to be transferred to another competent authority, and since the minimum wages claim is required to be adjudicated by the authority designated under the Act, the Commissioner of Labour cannot be faulted for having directed that the matter be listed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who is also competent to hear claims for minimum wages. The Writ Petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 5th August 2010 RRB