wp3240of98.sxw 1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3240 OF 1998 Union of India through its Executive Engineer & Assistant Engineer, Postal Civil Division, Nashik Road, now shifted at Khadki P.o. Compound, Khadki,Pune 411 003. . Petitioner -versus 1. The Labour Enforcement Officer & the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, l948 and Regional Commissioner Central Nashik .. 2. Shri B. P. Shinde, Store Chowkidar, Postal Civil Sub Division, Nasik Road, 3. Shri R.K. Adhav, Store Chowkidar, Postal Civil Sub Division Nasik Road Respondents. Ms. V.S. Masurkar i/b T.C. Kaushik, for the Petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 13th April, 2010 P.C. 1. Matter is called out from the final hearing board. wp3240of98.sxw 2 2. In the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 17th August, 1993, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central Mumbai, on application under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, l948. An application was filed on 16/11/1989, by the Labour Enforcement Officer against the petitioner Union of India for over time wages for the period from March 1988 to September, 1988 as per fixed rate as alleged. By the impugned order, application was allowed and directed to make payment within 30 days. 3. This Court while admitting the petition on 8.12.1998, granted ad interim order in terms of prayer clause (b). In the result, the same order was never implemented till this date. 4. None appeared for respondents on earlier occasion and today again. The matter is listed under the caption ‘dismissal/disposal’. 5. From the claim itself, it is clear that it is arising out of service conditions of the employees of Central Government and therefore governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. In my view, the authority has no jurisdiction to pass any order as passed in the present case. Therefore, without observing anything further on the merits of the matter and keeping all the points open, I am inclined to allow this petition in terms of prayer clause (a). However, liberty is granted to the respondents to invoke wp3240of98.sxw 3 proper remedy in accordance with law. All the points are kept open. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)