CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6777 OF 1992 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ---------- JAGDISH RAIS/O LATE SHRI JITAN RAI R/O VILLAGE NARAYANPUR P.S. MAHILA PS. ITARHI DISTT- BUXAR PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRETCOR, AGRICULTURE LABOURER, BIHAR MINIMUM WAGES ACT BIHAR, PATNA 3. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA BAILY PATNA-1 4. LABOUR INSPECTOR, ANCHAL ITARHI 5. KESHAV NATH BHAR S/O RAMESHWAR BHAR R/O –NARAYAN P.S. MAHILA, PS. ITARHI DISTT- BUXAR----RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No.6778 oF 1992 DEVENDRA RAI S/O LATE SHRI KAMATA RAI R/O –NARAYANPUR PO- MAHILA PS. ITARHI DISTT- BUXAR- PETITIONER Versus RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THE SAME AS IN CWJC NO.6777/92 IN ALL THE FOUR CASES EXCEPT RESPONDENT NO. 5 5. LALAN SAH S/O KESHO SAH R/O NARAYANPUR P.S. MAHILA PS. ITARHI DISTRICT- BUXAR---- RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No.6779 oF 1992 NARBDESHWAR RAI S/O LATE KAMATA RAI R/O NARAYANPUR P.O. MAHILA PS. ITARHI DISTT- BUXAR----Petitioner Versus RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THE SAME AS IN CWJC NO.6777/92 EXCEPT RESPONDENT NO.5 5. NARMAL RAM S/O SUKAR RAM R/O NARAYANPUR,PO MAHILA,PS. ITARHI. DISTT- BUXAR------------Respondents WITH CWJC No.6780 oF 1992 SIDH NATH RAI S/O LATE SUDAMA RAI R/O NARAYANPUR P.S. MAHILA P.S. ITARHI DISTT- BUXAR--------------(Petitioner) Versus RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THE SAME AS IN CWJC NO. 6777/92 EXCEPT RESPONDENT NO.5 5. JAGADISH RAM S/O BILAKI RAM R/O –NARAYANPUR P.S. ITARHI DISTT- BUXAR-------(Respondents) WITH CWJC No.6781 oF 1992 DEVENDRA RAI S/O LATE SHRI KAMATA RAI R/o NARAYANPUR PO- MAHILA PS, ITARHI, DISTT- BUXAR-(Petitioner) Versus RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE THE SAME AS IN CWJC NO. 6777/92 EXCEPT RESPONDENT NO.5 5. GHURAHU RAM S/O KAILASH RAM R/O –NARAYANPUR PO. MAHILA PS- ITARHI, DISTT- BUXAR (Respondents) ------------ For The Petitioner :MR.GOPAL PANDEY, ADVOCATE IN ALL THE CASES For The RespondentS : MR. ANIL KUMAR VERMA J.C. TO SC-3 IN ALL THE CASES ------------ - 2 - P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J In all these writ applications there is a common question of law and submission made on the legality of the order contained in annexure-2 which is the order under appeal passed by the Director Agriculture who is designated as appellate authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Based on application filed by the Labour Inspector, Itarhi, (then District of Bhojpur) under Form 7 of the Bihar Minimum Wages Act 1951 a proceeding in question was initiated. Allegation was that the agriculture labourers had not been paid minimum wages for expanse of 60 days which was in violation of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1951. The matter was taken cognizance of by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna. While dealing with the issue the Assistant Labour Commissioner categorically held that the application filed under Form 7 did not contain the necessary details and declaration nor was the column on solemn declaration signed. Prima facie, therefore the proceeding initiated was not in consonance with the procedure laid down both under the Act and the necessary Rules in this regard. Maintenance of such an application itself was termed to be doubtful. The other contention which has been made based on the order contained in annexure-1 that there was a categorical acceptance by the agriculture labourers that they had given the benefit of 1.25 Bigha of lands, the produce of which was for their use and utilization. This fact was not disputed or denied by either of the parties. There was no - 3 - discussion as to what exactly the minimum wages at the relevant time and what was the short fall which was claimed in the application filed against the petitioners. Another aspect which has been taken note of is that the produce from the land in question was for exclusive use and consumption by the labourers concerned and the same was never quantified or taken into consideration while calculating the minimum wages payable to the claimants. For the reason some of which noted in the earlier part of the order the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejected the complaint which is dated 15.5.1989 and has been brought on record as annexure-1 to the writ application. The matter travelled in appeal before the Director, Agriculture Labour i. e the appellate authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The appeal has been allowed in favour of the private respondents and aggrieved by the said order contained in annexure-2 dated 30.3.1992 the present writ applications have come to be filed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the reasoning assigned by the appellate authority is only ignoring the finding which was rendered by the original forum where the facts and the issue was thrashed out. He seems to have carried away by the counsel that the produce from the land which was given to the agriculture labourers will not be termed as labour and asserted that if the minimum wages as prescribed and notified is not paid then there is violation of the Act in question. Not only this he also held that there is no scope for any traditional benefit to be counted in such matters under the Act. - 4 - No doubt the legislation in question is a well fare and a beneficial piece of legislation but these are also well established by the Court that breaches of the kind complaint are technical in nature and therefore, the prescribed Form and procedure must be followed before a person can be saddled with the liability under the Act. If what has been recorded by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in annexure-1 is held to be correct that proper form without the signature of the Labour Inspector was made the basis for filing of the present case then it may not be treated as proper filing or institution in consonance with Form-7 read with the rules in this regard. This aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the appellate authority. Not only this the basic facts are not disputed and calculation of the benefit of the same not having been indicated by the Labour Inspector, a kind of prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in working out the liabilities which did not in compass of the aspect of the dispute between the parties. In the above started position the petitioners have made out a case for interference. The impugned order contained in annexure-2 dated 30.3.1992 has been quashed and the writ applications are allowed. Vide an interim order dated 30.10.1992 the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1800/-. Let this amount be refunded to the petitioners. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 27th November, 2008 NAFR (RPS)