THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10808 of 2010 Dated:29.09.2010 Between: M/s. ITD Cementation India Limited (Skanska Cementation India Limited), 1st Floor, Ani Wooltox Compound, 158, Vidyanagar Marg, Kalian, Santacruz, East Mumbai, represented by its Managing Director and another .. Petitioners And The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Warangal District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10808 of 2010 ORDER: The 2nd respondent presented a claim before the 1st respondent under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, the Act) against the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5. It was urged that about 1700 employees were engaged by the petitioners for execution of an irrigation contract and while some of them were not paid wages at all, rest of them were not paid the minimum wages. A prayer was also made for award of compensation as provided under the Act. Since there was delay in presentation of the claim, I.A.No.1 of 2010 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners challenge the very jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to entertain the claim. According to them, as many as 30 sub-contractors were engaged for execution of the work in the project and the workers were engaged by the sub-contractors. With that plea, the petitioners pray for a writ of prohibition to restrain the 1st respondent from proceeding with the adjudication of the matter. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter affidavits. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable and all the pleas can be urged before the 1st respondent itself. Certain other grounds are also pleaded. Heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Labour and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. It is not a case where a claim unconnected with the provisions of the Act is presented before the 1st respondent. The claim petition filed by the 2nd respondent is squarely referable to the provisions of the Act. The question as to whether the workers were engaged by the petitioners or by sub-contractors appointed by it, is a pure question of fact, which needs to be canvassed before and adjudicated by the 1st respondent. A writ of prohibition cannot be issued against an authority, who is very much vested with the jurisdiction to decide the claim. The mere fact that such a claim is without basis, does not constitute a ground to issue a writ of prohibition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to urge all the grounds before the 1st respondent. This Court has noticed an extraordinary development. The 1st respondent was impleaded only in the context of issuing writ of prohibition. However, he has chosen to file a counter affidavit, which he ought not to have done. Being an adjudicating authority, he is not supposed to take sides, or urge contentions in a writ petition. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent shall not be guided by any facts pleaded by him in the counter affidavit and he shall, adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29.09.2010 KH