IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.3.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.19024 of 2001 G.Sukumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour II Teynampet, Madras. 2. The Labour Assistant Inspector Circle II, Cuddalore. 3. Rupa .. Respondents Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the order dated 1.6.2001 in M.W.Case No.182 of 2000 and the proceedings of the first respondent herein dated 3.8.2001 in A4/8445/2001 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.Murali Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 ORDER The petitioner is carrying on photostat copy business by name "Deepika Xerox" at Cuddalore. He employed the third respondent as a part-time employee in the said shop. On an inspection, the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore filed an application before the first respondent under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity, "the Act"). The Authority held that the petitioner has not been paying minimum wages to the third respondent and is liable to pay the difference of minimum wages of a sum of Rs.5,702.70 and since the minimum wages are not paid in time, he also imposed two times penalty of Rs.11,405.40. The petitioner was directed to pay the said amount by the authority vide order dated 1.6.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 11.10.2001. Pending the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petition, interim stay was granted which was subsequently made absolute on 15.9.2003. Though the third respondent has been served privately, she has not appeared before this Court either personally or through counsel. 3. The defence taken by the petitioner was that subsequent to the order passed by the authority, he had paid the amount to the third respondent and she had executed a stamped receipt on 26.7.2001. When this fact was intimated to the first respondent, he has sent the impugned communication dated 3.8.2001 stating that such mode of payment is not acceptable and since the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages as directed by the authorities, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why criminal prosecution should not be launched against him. 4. When the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched, the petitioner should have very well satisfied the authority about the payment of the amount to the third respondent. Even otherwise, under Section 22B(2) of the Act, no court can take cognizance of an offence unless an application is filed within one month from the grant of sanction and in case of sanction under Section 22B(1) of the Act, it has to be done by the State Government or the authority nominated for this purpose. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner has no defence in case any proper complaint is lodged after getting sanction from the appropriate authorities. Until such time, the petitioner cannot stall the show cause notice and it is open for him to make his explanation. Even otherwise, if at all any criminal case is lodged, the petitioner can put forth all the defence. This court is not inclined to entertain a writ petition at the stage of show cause notice, as no right of the petitioner has been infringed by such notice. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar sasi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1. The Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour II Teynampet, Madras. 2. The Labour Assistant Inspector Circle II, Cuddalore. +1 C.C. to Mr.V.R. Shamuganathan Advocate, Sr.No.21978 +1 C.C. to Mr.A.L. Gandhimathi Advocate, Sr.No.21738 +1 C.C. to Government Pleader Sr.21788 W.P.No.19024 of 2001 31.3.2010 SSK -CO KV- 09/04/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/