WP(C) 4777/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. BC Pathak, the learned standing counsel for the Central Plantation Cro ps Research Institute (CPCRI). 2. The challenge in the instant case is to an order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), whereby the delay in the application filed by the respondent No.1 ( Applicant) was condoned and a decision was taken to consider the claim on merit. The applicant before the Labour Commissioner was a contract labourer engaged un der the Research Centre of the CPCRI at Kahikuchi, Guwahati. Their engagement wa s against the centrally sponsored scheme popularly known as Mini Mission -I. 3. Before the applicant moved the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), G uwahati under the Minimum Wages Act, they had approached the learned Central Adm inistrative Tribunal initially for regularization of service and subsequently fo r payment of minimum wages. 4. According to Mr. Pathak, the learned Tribunal by its order dated 20.3.20 07 in Original Application No. 53/06 (Annexure-5) while considering the claim of the respondent for minimum wages, took the view that since a separate authority is constituted under the Minimum Wages Act and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is excluded, the applicant was given the opportunity to approach the competent authority within two months, for redressal of their claim to minimum wages. 5. Subsequently, the contract labourers filed individual application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for Minimum Wages. By the impugned o rder, the authority took a prima facie view that the contract labourers are e mployees under Section 2(a) of the Act and the writ petitioners are employer under Section 2(g) of the said Act. 6. Proceeding on this basis, by the impugned order of 18.4.2011 (Annexure-1 7), the Labour Commissioner held that the applicants had made out a case for con donation of delay in filing their claim application and accordingly an order und er second proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act was passed to cond one the delay. 7. The petitioners contend that the authority should have afforded an opp ortunity to the writ petitioners (non applicant) before a declaration was made t hat the applicant is in Schedule employment as specified in the Schedule to th e Act. The declaration made by the authority that the non applicant is an emplo yer within the meaning of Section 2(e) is also a matter of concern of the writ petitioners as the said finding was given without affording any opportunity to t he non applicants to produce any evidence. 8. Bearing in mind that the authority is yet to give any decision on the merit of the claim made by the applicant, and considering that the authority is vested with the power to fix minimum rates of wages in certain sectors, I feel t hat intervention by this Court at this stage of the proceeding may not be justif ied. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is not accepted and the petitioners are r elegated to the forum of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, to contest the claim for minimum wages made by the applicant. However, the non applicants shall be afforded the opportunity to rebut the declaration made under Section 2( e) in favour of the applicants and also the declaration made under Section 2(g) against the non applicants. The conclusion of the authority on these two aspec ts is declared to be a rebuttable conclusion to be considered afresh on the basi s of evidence that may be adduced by the parties, in the proceeding. 10. With the above observation and direction, this batch of writ petitions i s disposed of by remitting the matter for consideration on merit by the authori ty under the Minimum Wages Act, by keeping open the issue of jurisdiction of th e CPCRI authority.