^ HISH COURT OF GHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench: Writ ? 'BLE SHRi H.!-. DATTU, C.J. No.578of1SSO 2. IVIuk'undram S/o Satyanand Agharia, Aged about Fifty-Eight Years, Occupation : Cultivation, Resident of Village : Sa'iabhata, Tahsi!: Gharghoda; District Raigarh (MP) Versus Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghocia, 'District: Raigarh (MP) Sitaram, S/o Naravan Rawat, Aged Forty Years, Oocupation: Semce, R/o Village : Saliabhata, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (MP) Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S Agrawal, Govt. Adv. for the SSate/respondent No.1. Shri V.R. Twari, counse! for responcient No.2. (Passed on 2ff" Mareh, 2007) The petitioner ca!is in question the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) In exeroise of his power under the provi.sions of Minimum Wages Aot, 1948 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order he has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,821=20 paise to the 2nd respondent as minimum wages for a period from May 1984 tili May1988. (2) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing fQf the petitioner would submit that the 2"° res'pondent in the writ petition vvas working as househoid Isbourer with t.he petitioner and therefore employment of the 2 respondent is not covered under the provlsions of the Aot. Therefore, learned counsel for the pgtltioner woutd submit that the impugned order passed by the 1 respondent is vvithout authority of law and without jurisdiction. ;;~1 i :!1 [i: KJ Ss'ss' ^ ss tei'dliSMSiN %• (3) Sh.n V.R. Tiwari, !earned counsel appearlng for the 2" respondent would submit that the 2 respondent was working v^ith t.he petitioner as an agricultura! labourer and therefore the 1 respondent had authonty of law to pass sn order in exerclse of his power under the provisions of the Act. In support of his submiss'on, the iearned counsel has brought to my notice the notiflcation issued bythe State Government dated 24-11-1976. (4) The question thgt falls for consideration of this Court Is vi'hether the 2" respondent was '•.vorking as agricultural labourer with the petitioner and thsrefore the provisioris ofthe Acti<fcu!d apply. (5) In the order passed, t.he 1 respondent in number of places 'nas referred to the work that vi/as entrusted io the 2 respondent by the petitioner. He has stated that the 2 respondent was working with t.hc petitioner as a household labourer. It is only in the operatfve portion of the order that there is a mention that t.he 2 respondent v/as wor.king as agriculturai labourer vvi+h ths petitioner. A conioint reading of severai paragraphs of the order passed by the 1 respondent would demonstrate thai the 2nd respondent v?as worklng with the petitioner onlv as household labourer. (6) The next questlon that would arise for consideration of this Court is whetherthe provisions ofthe Act could appiyto a person who was working as household iaboursr. For deciding this issue, the provisions of Section 2 (g) read with Sectlon 27 and the Schedu'e appended to the Act requires to be noticed. Sectlon 2 (g) ofthe Act speaks of'scheduled employmenS", means an employment specified in the Schedule, or any process or branch of work formlng part of such emp!oyment. Section 27 of the Act empov/ers the State Government to add to either part of the Schedule any employment in respect of v,'h!ch it is of opinion that minlmum rate of the wages should be fixed under the.Act. ^ ^<fc (7) A perusal of the schedule to the Act would nowhere indicate that the employment in the form of household labourer would fait under the said Schedule. Since the employment of the 2" respondent is not covered u.nder the Sohedule, the 1 respondent had no authority of law or jurisdlction to pass an order granting rel.ief to the 2" respondent by directing the petitioner to pay a minimum v'/age for a period of four years in a sum of Rs. 5,821=20 paise. (8) In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, the order passed by the 1 .-espondent requires to be annulled. Accordlngiy the foiiowing: Qrder 1. The petition is aiiowed. 2. The order made by the Sub Divisionat Officer (Revenue) dated 02-05-1989 issetaside. 3. !n the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost in this petition. Ordered accordingly. SdA ChiefJustice ^