CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3287 OF 1993 ==== In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ==== Surya Nath Choudhary son of Janabi Choudhary, resident of village Mitohara, P.O. Kukuraha, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar. ------ Petitioner versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Labour Commissioner, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna-800001 3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Agriculture), Bailey Road, Patna-800001 4. The Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Labour Inspector, Itarhi, Buxar 5. Bahadur Kurmi son of Ram Prasad Kurmi, resident of village Mitohara, P.O.Kukuraha, P.S. Itarhi, District Buxar ==== ----- Respondents For the petitioner: Mr.Arbind Nath Pandey For the State : Mr.Anil Kr.Jha,G.A. ==== P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kr.Tripathi,J., Petitioner challenges the order dated 7.7.1992 contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Agriculture Labour) as well as the order passed in appeal by the appellate authority which is dated 2.12.1992 contained in Annexure-2. 2. By virtue of Annexure-1 the liability of Rs. 1170/- has been fixed upon the petitioner which was payable to respondent no.5 as difference in the minimum wage paid to him. An additional compensation 2 of Rs. 110/- was also granted in favour of private respondent. The order in question, however, was not given effect to because the petitioner was granted judicial protection vide order dated 16.7.1993. 3. Though there is representation on behalf of the State but private respondent has not appeared to assist the court. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the orders are fit to be set aside on the ground that the decision rendered is not based on evidence as no evidence was produced by the claimant before the authority at any point of time. No doubt an application by the Labour Inspector was filed before the competent authority making out claim under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act but this was never substantiated by way of any evidence brought against the petitioner’s assertion. Submission of learned counsel is that the petition filed against the petitioner was motivated in the background that a similar petition which was Case no. 4/1987-88 came to be rejected as it was unfounded. Subsequently yet another application was filed with similar claims and there is evidence to show that the petitioner and private respondent were not on the best of terms because there is litigation going on against them for a long while. 3 5. In absence of any independent material or evidence having been led by the claimant, the quasi judicial decision cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision rendered in the case of Chamru Prasad Mehta Vs The State of Bihar and ors.(1985 PLJR 569). 6. On going through the impugned order contained in annexure-1 the designated authority does take notice of the fact that neither the claimant appeared in the matter to assist the court nor did he file show cause. The Labour Inspector had filed the claim on behalf of claimant in support of the claim brought against the petitioner. In other words, the authority had only the application filed against the petitioner as the basis for adjudication. This may not be sufficient to fix the liability upon the petitioner, more so when the petitioner had tried to demonstrate that the claim of the claimant was neither correct nor sustainable for the reasons which are reflected in the order. The Appellant Authority against the impugned order contained in annexure-1 has sustained and affirmed the order in appeal and has further rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. 7. If the court finds basic fallacy in a decision making process at the first instance which 4 is quasi judicial decision and has civil consequences for the petitioner then even the order passed in appeal based on same or similar material or reasoning cannot be sustained. Since this Court has found that neither the Labour Inspector who had initiated the proceeding against the petitioner nor the claimant ever appeared before the authority to substantiate the claim and render evidence in this regard, the order in question cannot be sustained; both annexure-1 dated 7.7.1992 and annexure-2 dated 2.12.1992 are quashed. 8. The writ application is allowed (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 3.12.2008 AI/NAFR