THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25196 of 1998 Date: 13-02-2008 Between: C.Sunil …Petitioners and 1.The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad, and another. …Respondents The Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Writ Petition No.25196 of 1998 Order: Aggrieved by the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court in I.D.No.21 of 1995 dated 21-02-1997 to the extent he has been denied back wages, the petitioner-workman has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in so far as the relief of reinstatement granted by the Additional Industrial Tribunal is concerned, the second respondent-Corporation has implemented the award and reinstated the petitioner into service as a Scavenger, but, continues to pay Rs.500/- per month only. While the petitioner-workman contended that he had worked for thirteen months, the respondent-Corporation denied the same and on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had worked only for a period of four months. On the ground that the petitioner was not subjected to cross-examination on his deposition that he had worked for thirteen months, the Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the respondent-Corporation, held that termination of the petitioner was illegal and passed an award directing the petitioner’s reinstatement into service. While it is true that the Labour Court, has to take into account several factors before deciding whether or not to grant back wages, in the present case, the Labour Court has not chosen to assign detailed reasons in this regard although it has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was paid daily wages of Rs.20/- for cleaning the toilets and that he was getting Rs.500/- per month. The evidence on record indicates that the petitioner had put in only thirteen months service that too as a daily wage employee. In such circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in denying back wages to the petitioner for the period from the date of his disengagement on 30-09-1994 till the date of the award on 21- 02-1997. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, despite being continued ever since as a Scavenger, continues to be paid Rs.500/- per month, which is less than even the minimum wages, for the past more than a decade. If this were indeed true, it is a sad reflection on the manner in which the respondent-Corporation is dealing with its employees and is extracting work from them without even paying them the minimum wages prescribed for such posts. While it is settled law that inability on the part of the employer to pay minimum wages can never be justified and failure to pay minimum wages may even necessitate closure of the establishment of the employer, it must also not be lost sight of that these are all the matters extraneous to the award of the Labour Court. In Certiorari proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is concerned only with the validity of the award of the Labour Court and not with the matters extraneous thereto. Except to express the fond hope that the Corporation would refrain from exploiting the services of persons like the petitioner and would ensure that minimum wages are paid, it would be inappropriate to say anything more. This Court would not be justified in issuing a Mandamus to the respondent-Corporation to pay minimum wages where the challenge before this Court is to the award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The relief of back wages, as sought for by the petitioner-workman, cannot be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) 13th February, 2008 lur