IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15862 OF 2011 BETWEEN: M/s. Futnani Steels Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Murlimal Futnani S/o. Vishanji Futnani …. Petitioner AND The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cum The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Government of A.P. and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15862 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned order, dated 12-05-2011, in M.W. Case Nos.10 and 11 of 2008 passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – cum - Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad - 1st respondent, as illegal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and doing the business of manufacturing steel tubes. On 15-10-2008, the 2nd respondent – Inspector under Minimum Wages Act – cum – Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, on instructions of the 1st respondent, visited the petitioner company and filed two claims vide M.W. Case Nos.10 and 11 of 2008 claiming difference of minimum wages of Rs.52,744/- payable for 8 workers and Rs.2,32,714/- payable for 41 workers, respectively, against the petitioner company stating that the petitioner company is covered under G.O.Ms.No.122, dated 28-12-2007, as per which minimum rate of wages have been fixed for steel mills and steel re-rolling mills. The petitioner company filed counter in the M.W. cases stating that the company is not in the business of manufacture of any steel; and that it only uses already manufactured steel as raw material and manufactures steel tubes and hence, the said G.O. is not applicable to it. The 3rd respondent – Futnani Steels (P) Limited Employees Union has filed an application for its impleadment as Applicant No.2 in the MW Cases and the same was allowed. The 1st respondent allowed both the M.W. cases vide order, dated 12-05-2011, directing the petitioner company to pay Rs.2,84,592/- along with two times of compensation i.e. Rs.5,68,984/- and to deposit the total amount by way of a Demand Draft in favour of the 1st respondent within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence before the 1st respondent - Primary Authority; that no opportunity was given to advance arguments in the main case, and so, the Primary Authority has violated the principles of natural justice and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Labour opposed the same contending that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence; that the application filed by the petitioner to summon the witness has not furnished to the respondents and therefore, the Primary Authority has rightly closed the evidence and posted the matter for arguments and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. As seen from the docket proceedings, cross-examination of RW-1 was completed by 11-03-2011, and the matter was posted to 22- 03-2011 for further evidence of the petitioner - company. The petitioner – company has not come forward for adducing further evidence and therefore, the petitioner’s evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments to 29-03-2011. On that day, the arguments of the respondents was completed and the matter was posted for petitioner’s arguments. Thereafter, the arguments of the respondents were heard and the matter was reserved, and ultimately the impugned order was pronounced on 12-05-2011. From the docket proceedings, it is clear that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce further evidence and it is also clear that on behalf of the petitioner, no arguments were advanced in the main case. Therefore, the Primary Authority violated the principles of natural justice, and hence, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Primary Authority by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 12-05-2011, in M.W. Case Nos.10 and 11 of 2008 passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - cum - Joint Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad and remanding the matter to the 1st respondent - Primary Authority. The Primary Authority shall give two (2) weeks’ time after receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner – company, respondent before it, to adduce evidence and within that period, the petitioner shall adduce evidence and the case shall be disposed of within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 17, 2011. KTL