IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11172 of 2002 Mahendra Thakur, son of Dasai Thakur, resident of village +P.O.-Jagdishpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Bihar 2. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jagadishpur, District- Bhojpur (Arrah). 4. Radha Kirshna Thakur, son of Late Ram Charitar Thakur, village + P.O.+P.S.-Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur (Arrah). ………..Respondents Advocate for petitioner : Sri Brij Mohan Kumar Singh : Sri Atul Kumar Pandey Advocate for Respondent no.4 : Mr. V. Nath : Md.Waliur Rahman Advocate for the State : Sri Sanjay Prasad, A.C to G.P.-3 _________ 4. 8.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhojpur, Arrah in Minimum Wages Case No.2/96-97 filed by the petitioner against respondent no.4 Radha Krishna Thakur and to restore the order dated 6.12.1996 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur in Case No.211/92. The short facts in this case are that the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Minimum Wages Act. The claim of the petitioner was that he 2 was working in Radha Hair Cutting Saloon situated at Dular Gali More at Jagdishpur, of which respondent no.4 was the owner. It was claimed that from the year 1986 till 1992, the petitioner continued to work there on the wages of Rs.200/- per month, but the same was not paid to him. The S.D.O., Jagdishpur directed the Labour Inspector to look into the matter and submit his report. The Labour Inspector gave his report that the petitioner Mahendra Thakur was an employee in the said Saloon of which the respondent no.4 was the Proprietor from 1986 to 1992, but no payment had been made. The respondent no.4 appeared in the said proceeding and denied the fact that he was running a Saloon by the name and style of Radha Hair Cutting Saloon and further denied that Mahendra Thakur was his employee or there was any due payable to the petitioner. Further it was alleged that the case was filed by the petitioner on account of enmity and pendency of the several cases between them. Upon examining the witnesses of the parties and considering the report of the Labour Inspector, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur allowed the claim of arrears of salary amounting to Rs.22000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.2000/- by his order dated 6.12.1996. The respondent no.4 filed an appeal against the said order being Minimum Wage Case No.2/96-97 by which order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer was set aside and the appeal was allowed by the impugned order dated 10.07.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of the Appellate Authority have been passed only on 3 the basis of conjecture and surmises and there was no evidence available in support of the same. It is submitted by learned counsel that when the Labour Inspector had made inquiry on the spot which was in favour of the petitioner, it was not open to the Appellate Authority to come to a different conclusion treating the case as a civil suit. It is urged that the proceedings under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act are in the nature of summary proceedings and the findings recorded by the authority under the said Act cannot be set aside by taking into account extraneous matters. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 on the other hand submits that in terms of the proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, any application must be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wage or other amount is payable and it was not open to the S.D.O. to have proceeded with the application with respect to a matter relating to the period from 1986 to 1992. It is thus contended that the claim itself was barred by limitation except for a period of six months prior to the filing of the claim. It is contended by learned counsel that no order has been passed by the authority showing its satisfaction regarding sufficient cause for not making the application within the statutory period and thus, the order of the S.D.O. is contrary to law. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act can only be raised with respect to payment of less than the minimum rates of wages whereas in the present matter the claim of the petitioner relates only to payment of arrears of salary and no dispute has been raised regarding non-payment of the wages 4 at the minimum rates and thus, there was no jurisdiction at all in the authority under the Minimum Wages Act to have considered the application of the petitioner. It is urged by learned counsel that the Labour Inspector has not made the local inspection in presence of the petitioner but behind his back, and without even looking into any books and registers of the Saloon in question he has given his report against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has considered the matter on its merits not by looking into extraneous materials but relying upon the very application filed by the petitioner in which he had admitted that apart from working as barber in the said Saloon he was also working as compounder. It is urged that the Appellate Authority has considered the manner in which the Labour Enforcement Officer has made inquiry in the matter without looking into any documents and merely relying upon inquiries made by him from certain persons and, therefore, came to the conclusion that proper inquiry has not been made by the Labour Officer and his report is not reliable. On a consideration of the submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has not succeeded in showing any serious infirmity in the order of the appellate authority under the Minimum Wages Act. This Court also does not find that any extraneous matter has been taken into consideration by the Additional Collector while passing the impugned order dated 10.07.2002. Moreover, there being no satisfaction recorded by the 5 authority under Section 20 of the Act that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner in not making the application within the statutory period of six months from the date on which the Minimum Wages became payable, the order of the S.D.O. would be illegal with respect to any period which was beyond six months prior to the filing of the application, which would include practically the entire period from 1986 to 1991 for which the order has been passed. Further, it is evident from the averments made in the writ petition that there was no dispute between the parties regarding the payment of wages at less than the minimum rates of wages and under the said circumstances, it was not open to the authority under the Minimum Wages Act to have entertained the application at all. The dispute was simply a matter relating to non-payment of wages for a period of six years, which does not appear to be a claim which ought to be considered under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 10.07.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhojpur. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.K. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)