IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos: 4241 and 6222 of 2001 W.P.No.4241 of 2001 Between: The Girijan Co-Op Corporation Limited ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Authority under Payment of Minimum Wages Act and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared W.P.No.6222 of 2001 The Girijan Co-op Corporation Limited ….Petitioner And The Authority under Payment of Minimum Wages Act and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: SRI N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP FOR LABOUR Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: As common issues are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard and being disposed of together. These two writ petitions are filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 28-07-2000 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam, respondent No.1 herein. At the outset, it may be stated that notices to respondent No.2 in both the cases have not been served. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to await service of notices on respondent No.2. The petitioner, a State owned Corporation, has been running shops to supply commodities of domestic requirements to the tribals living in the agency areas. Respondent No.2 in both the cases were appointed as salesmen on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.500/- per month by the Branch Manager, Yellandu, Khammam District. They approached respondent No.1 with separate applications for a direction to the petitioner to pay them minimum wages under the provisions of the Payment of Minimum wages Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). The said applications were allowed by respondent No.1, by separate orders, with the direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5671/- towards minimum wages with one time compensation totalling to Rs.11,342/- to the workmen-respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions. These two orders are assailed in these two writ petitions. At the hearing, Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that respondent No.1 has committed an error in holding that respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions are the employees of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that they were only engaged as commission agents, on a consolidated amount, and therefore, they are not covered by the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 has not shown any basis for arriving at the differential of wages. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour representing respondent No.1 and perused the record. In its order, respondent No.1 identified the following issues. 1. The liability of the Management 2. The existence of Master and Servant relationship 3. Whether the salesman comes under the definition of workman/employee. 4. The effect of obtaining bond from workman 5. The effect of transfer of workman from one place to another. Respondent No.1 held that the main functions and objectives of the petitioner-Corporation are: (i) To purchase outright, minor forest produce on monopoly basis from tribals by paying a fair price (ii) To supply all their domestic requirements at cheaper rates and (iii) To meet their credit requirement for agricultural developments. It further held that for the purpose of discharging the above functions, the petitioner is running a number of daily requirement sales depots in the agency areas and these depots, therefore, fell within the definition of “shop” under Section 2 (21) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Respondent No.1 further went on to consider each of the five issues and gave findings in favour of respondent No.2-workmen on these issues. I have carefully considered the reasons given by respondent No.1 and I find that respondent No.1 has undertaken a very careful analysis of the facts and the provisions of the Act in rejecting the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.2- workmen were merely commission agents but not the employees. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere with the findings of fact and the petitioner failed to show any patent error in these findings rendered by respondent No.1. Having carefully considered the order of respondent No.1, I am satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by it are based on sound reasoning. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with these findings. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no basis is shown by respondent No.1 in arriving at the amounts towards differential wages, I do not find any substance in this contention. The petitioner has not come out with a specific stand that the amount arrived at by respondent No.1 is contrary to the notifications issued under the relevant Acts regarding payment of minimum wages. Unless the petitioner specifically raises a plea and substantiates the same with reference to any material, this Court need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the amount arrived at by respondent No.1. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by respondent No.1. The writ petitions are dismissed. It is needless to mention that if any part of the amounts, in dispute, have already been paid by the petitioner, they can be given credit to while complying with the orders passed by respondent No.1. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th November, 2008 vrn