HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8571 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order, dated 26-02-2011, passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cum Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru, the 2nd respondent herein. 2. The petitioners are Directors of an Industrial Unit, by name, Foods, Fats & Fertilizers Limited, Tadepalligudem. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ashoknagar, Eluru, W.G. District, 1st respondent herein, submitted a complaint on 23-02-2011 before the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioners were not paying the Minimum Wages to their employees. On the same day, the 2nd respondent numbered the complaint as M.W. Case No.20 of 2011. A notice through Fax was received by the petitioners, requiring them to appear before the 2nd respondent on 26-02-2011. It is stated that the 2nd respondent insisted that the matter shall be disposed of on the same day, and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners; he passed the impugned order by evening. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent has kept aside the prescribed procedure in the context of issuance of notice or conducting hearing of the matters under the Act. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit narrating the facts pertaining to the case. It is stated that there was some labour unrest in the Industrial Unit and in that view of the matter, he has taken the steps for immediate disposal of the matter. He has referred to the merits of the claim also. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Labour and Employment. 5. There was no complaint from any employee of the petitioners’ organization or their Unions. It was only the 1st respondent, who submitted a complaint before the 2nd respondent. A detailed examination thereof was necessary. The 2nd respondent ought to have verified the claim before numbering the case. Assuming that the 2nd respondent found the claim submitted by 1st respondent as valid, he ought to have issued a notice of minimum 15 days to the affected parties. The record discloses that the 2nd respondent has chosen to entrust the service of the notice to the very complainant and the latter, in turn, sent the notice by Fax. 6. With all sincerity, the petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and prayed for time. However, the 2nd respondent was not in a mood to grant time and the petitioners were forced to file a counter then and there. Not a single witness was examined much less any documents were taken on record. The 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders holding that the workers mentioned in the application are entitled to be paid the difference of Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) from October 2010 and granted 10 days time for the petitioner to pay that amount. 7. This Court takes serious exception the manner in which the 2nd respondent dealt with the matter and conducted himself. By any standard, he crossed all the limits of propriety and reasonableness and decided a claim, which has several ramifications, within three days from the date of its presentation. The justification offered by him that there was industrial unrest, is totally untenable. When the matter is purely within the purview of the Payment of Wages Act, he was under obligation to verify the nature of claim, the entitlement of the workers, the justification pleaded by the employer and the purport of the relevant provisions of law. None of these ingredients are present in the impugned order. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent. It is made clear that if this Court comes across the similar exercise on the part of the incumbent, who is holding office of the Joint Commissioner, serious consequences would flow. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 20, 2011. KTL