THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 17440 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in taking action against the fourth respondent for not paying minimum wages to the workers as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the second respondent to take immediate action against the fourth respondent management to pay minimum wages to the workers working in fourth respondent jute mills with effect from 1.10.2010 in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.34, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department (Lab.II), dated 17.7.2004. 2. The averments, in brief, of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, may be stated as follows: Petitioner is a registered Trade Union in fourth respondent company (for short, ‘R4 company’), taking care of interest and welfare of the workers . R4 company is engaged in manufacture of jute bags. The company fell sick earlier under the old management and the present management took over the said company, and thereafter it came out of sickness in the year 2002. Workers worked for lesser wage to a tune of Rs.35/- per day since 1994 and lastly to a tune of Rs.5/- per day up to 31.08.2007. Due to financial problems, some of the workers used to submit their resignations and settling their accounts. Some of the workers who retired from service after completion of 35 years of service, used to rejoin service afresh in the company, and management of R4 company used to put them in second and third category wage rate by paying lesser wages than the regular workers exploiting their hardship. The petitioner entered into a settlement with R4 company management on 12.10.2007 under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was in force up to 30.09.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the management of R4 company to enhance the daily wage of workers. The petitioner also submitted a charter of demands on 26.3.2011 to the respondents 2 to 4. The second respondent issued a notice dated 18.4.2011 to R4 company and the petitioner union to attend a meeting on 19.4.2011, and in the meeting held on that day, authorized representative of R4 company admitted in writing to pay the wages. The second respondent issued notice dated 29.4.2011 to the R4 company and the petitioner union to attend meeting held on 3.5.2011, and in that meeting, authorized representatives of R4 company admitted before the second respondent that daily wage paid to the workers with effect from 1.8.2010, but they did not sign on minutes copy. The minimum basic rates of wages fixed are linked to the consumer price index numbers for the jute industrial workers at 447 points in G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 17.7.2004, which came into force from 12.10.2004, according to which the cost of living allowance payable per point increase is Rs.10.50 ps. per point to all category workers. The petitioner submitted representations dated 19.04.2011, 12.05.2011, 19.5.2011, 26.5.2011 and 2.6.2011 to the second respondent requesting to take necessary action to implement minimum wages to workers in R4 company, but it did not take any action. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in pursuance of the representations of the petitioner, a joint meeting was held by the Deputy Commissioner on 19.04.2011 and in the said meeting, Personnel Manager of the fourth respondent company gave details with regard to payment of wages payable to the employees and that as the Managing Director of the company was not available, it was stated that the next date would be communicated to the petitioner; that, in pursuance of the admission made by the Personnel Manager of the fourth respondent company, the workers are entitled to minimum wages as per the rates fixed in G.O. Ms. No.34, dated 17.07.2004. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent contended that there is no provision under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to call for a joint meeting for the purpose of determining difference of wages and if the petitioner union is aggrieved for not paying the minimum wages as prescribed under the G.O. No.34, dated 17.07.2004, the remedy is only to file an application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and therefore, the Writ Petition is pre-mature. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered Trade Union of R4 company. It is seeking payment of minimum wages as prescribed under G.O. Ms. No.34, dated 17.07.2004. If the minimum wages are not being paid to the members of petitioner, certainly they have got a statutory right under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to invoke so that they can seek remedy. Instead of filing the application thereunder, before the competent authority under the Act, 1948, it gave representation to the respondent no.2. But, under the Act, 1948, the respondent no.2 has no authority to convene joint meeting for the purpose of settlement between the management and the workers of the company. If the petitioner has got a statutory right to enforce grievance of its members, it ought to have filed a petition under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but not submitting representation to the second respondent. Further, it is the specific case of the fourth respondent that they are not liable to pay any wages, but, according to the petitioner, as per Government Order, the employees are entitled to minimum wages. This disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing an application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 17440 OF 2011 28.06.2011