HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISSARH AT BILASPUR SinaleBench rHon'bteShriH.L.Dattu.C^. Petitioners Writ Petttion No^64 of1«0 1. Haripriya Bai, wife of Late Bhuvneshwar Patet, aged 37 ysars, •. -. 2. Jogendra Patel, son of Late Bhuvrieshwar Patel, agal about 16 yeaFS, 3. Ku. Amrila Patel, d/o Late Bhuvneshwar Patel, aged about 14 yeare, 4. Ku. Chardralanta Patel, d/o Late BhyvneshwarPatel, agedabart 12 yeare, 5. Ku. Kuntala Patel, d/Q Late Bhuvneshwar Patel, aged 10 yeare, 6. • Pusliar .^Kumar Patel, s/b Late Bhuvnesliwar Patel, aged aboutS years, . All residents of village Pata, Tahsil Ghaighoda, District Raigarh (MP) - .....vereus . • ' ! .. . • ^— " ^ 1. ^ Sut} Qjvistonal Qfficer (RevgnHe]i .'Iati;. g y<Sh|i@hgda,District:RaigaiTi;(I^.R.).^^'~S '. 2,,^ f ffu|liahu,-(Miri6r), S/o Lafe ^ielar,|^^| » - : ^laria, -Through : Natural Guaigian.^i^^ - . tnother, Smt. Ramwati, Wj/o.LaW^Si(ia^. R/o' Village : Tapranga,; .Tal-Bilgy^ Ghaighoda,DistrictRaigarh(M.P.5;:S- Petition under ArtiGles 226 &.22Z-ofi{iS33onstitutionof India for writs inlthe naturecffcertiorari.mandamus.DroRiB]6bhetc;ariaforai»roDri^fuF r' diFections.:^ . : ~ ' ' " ; .:^,' 1:'':,^' Present : ShrtDevendraPateliCounsetfcrthepetitioneFs. ' s Shri G.D.VasMani, :Government Advocate for the State/respondentNo.1 ^ -~ Respbndents ORALORDER (Passedon108'April,2W7) The petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Bhuvneshwar,'They have beenbrought on record byorderofthis Court dated 11-12-1991. The deceased petitioner Bhuvneshwar was anagriculturist. l-le . 'wasa native ofVillage Tapranga, Tahsit Gharghoda, District Raigarh. (2)^ The seoond respondent, who was minpr at the time of flling-'of the writ ^ petition is jBpresented through nateral Quafdian his mottier Sn^. Rarnwati. ]ii i :1 I. IJ 1 I. • ; i '•! 2. : He, throughhismother.hactgone before the firat respondent requestir^ him firetly to fix minimum wages under the provisions ofthe Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (henceforth 'the Aot') and then direet the deoeased petitionerto paythe minim.um wages for the fast 8% years. (3) Thedrst respondentreoorded the depbsition ofthe deoeased petitfoner as welt as the mother of the second respondent. tn tiis evidence, the deceased petitioner has categorically stated that he owns agriGUltural land and the father of the-.second respondent, namely, Sicfar was his 'Kamjya' (emptoyee) ahd after death of Sidar, his minor son,. i.e., the secorri respondent was his 'Kamiya' (employee). Nowhere in his evidence, the deceased petitionerhas statedthathehad employed the father of thesecond respondent and thereafter the seeoncf respondent as an agricultural labourer. In spite of this.the first respondert has come to the conolusion thatthe deceased petitioner hacf employed the father ofthe second respondent and thereafter the second respondent as an agricultural labourer and, ttierefore, the second respondent is entitted to mtnimum ;wages under the provistons of the Act and ftas directed the deceased petitjoner to pay a sum of Rs.25,461 =70 paise to the second respondent, by ftjs jmpugned order dated 10-4-1989. Aggrieved by the sakl order passat by the firet respondent, the , petitioner is before me in this writ petition. (4) Shri Devendra Patel, teamed counsel appeanng for the legal representafives of the decgased petjtioner would submit that the father of the f second respondent ancf thereafter the seGond tesppndent were working as household labdurer with the deceased petitionerand, therefore, employment of the father of the second responctent and the secxyid respondent is not coyered underthe provisions of the Act. Therefore, the leamedeounselwpulGl Tt.rether submit that the impugned order passed by the firet respondent is withoutauthorityoflawandwjthoutjurisdjction. , '^. 1- WM /"•:•;' a ^--^ , 'pV sqtJSpun; psxij aqp|not<s^6B st.it .(o stBj uunLuiuii.u }e4) uoiuido jo s! 41 i|OtL(M io issdsaj u!4uaEuAojduja Aue 9|npaLpg;9tBjp yBd jsL|}ia 0} ^ae oitueaiujaAqs S)B}SE at}} aiaftodtus }oy SLB^O ^ yoiioss ;'}ustufo|dLua qons p}jed Suiuucy >)JOM .(O Ejauejq JO sssgcud Aue jo 'sinpstjos: 91)} ui peyjosdsiusLuAQidius ue suesui '»}US[uAo|dLus p9|np9tps,i ,(6 s>)B3ds pv 34} p (6$£ uoipsg '{»o!)ou sq o} sjinbsj pv aif) o} (»pusdde8|np3L|os 94} pue pv siji.io /z uonosg tjiiM pesj (6)2 uoj}oas P suoisiAQjd 34) 'snssi sit|} Buipiosp jo;j •jajnoqei p|04ssnoL| SB Sut>iJOM SBM OqM uosjsd B o)A|dde p|no»4ovsij^osuoiSiAOjdsMiJSLitStjM si iJnoo siti) p uoiiEiapisuoo jo^ SBUB p|noM )B4} uossanb pou 341 (e) •js.inoqei pioyesnoy se Ajuo jsuo.4j}ad paseaosp 8t|) I)}IM BU!>|JGWI sjaw }uepuod9sj jsuooss 841J3UB8J9l|}pUB4U8pUOdSSJpU008SStj).(OJ8li)B.j3L|llBL|}S}B.(}SUOLU8pp|nO,Vl }uapuodsaj is.iy ai|} Aq psssed japjo sus ys sijdBjSejed IBJSASS p Buipesj )UlOfuOO V 'JSUO!}j)9d p9SBSQ8p 3L|} Aq tuspuodssj puo»s94} pue }U9puodsaj puoossai]}.iojS4}ej9Lj)0}pa}sn.i}U8SBMtBt|})iJOMsi|}o)p9ii9j3jse4 'saoeid yi jsquinu ui '}U8pucris8j }sju sy) 'psssed jspjp psu6ndLU! 94) u| (^) •A|dde p|noM py SMUO suo.isiAOJd 94} 'sjojejstfl 'pue jsuo!}!}sd paseeoep stj} y)jM jsjnoqei )Bjn}|nou6B 9e CUDJJCW 8J8/(t )U3pUOdS9J pUOOSS 31^ J3UBaj3L|) pUB tUSpUOdSSJ PU003S Sl|l ^O JaL|}B( 8L|} jei))ai|M si }jnoo SIL)) p uoitejspisuoo joj siiet )BL|} uoitsanb st|i (9) '9Z61.-1. ^t?S P8)BP )uaiuuj8Aos s}e)s sy} Aq psnssj up!}eoi).4ou SL|) satou Aiu o) )ijBnoJq SBL) aieooApv lusuiujsAOo psiues) SL|} 'uoissiiuqns SILJ ys ^joddns u| •pv SLJ) p suoisiAojd 3L|} jspyn jeMod 314 p ssiojsxa ui jspjo psuBndiui SL)} ssed 0} MB] jo Ajuoqine p6L| )U8pUOdS8J }SJl( S4) '9JO.jaj3l)} 'pUB jajnoqB) |ejn})noy6e ue SB JsuoB!)ad pesesosp sij} I|}IM 6ui>|jcm sjsw juepuodsej puooss 94} jeyesjsi)} pye }U8puodS9J puooes s4}.t6jst))Bi 3144611} jiujqns pjnoM I.-ON )U8puodssj/8}B)S 3L|)JO^ BuUBSddB S^eOOApV )u9U.II-ljaA03 |»UJB9| 'IUBWSBA'a'OULtS (S) '£ 3lt.t: ^ ^^^p fe (9) A perusal of the Schedule to the Act would nowhere indicate that the employment in the form of household labourer would fall under the said Sohedule. Since the employment of the father of the secand respondent and the second respondent is not covered under the Schalule, the first respondent had no authority of law OF jurisdiction to pass the impugned order granting relief to the second respondent by directing the deceased petitioner to pay a minimum wage for a period of 8% yeara in a sum ofRs.25,461=70 palse. ~.. —~ ' (10) In view of the above discussion, iri my opinion, the opder passej bythe firet respondent requipes to be annulled. Aocorclingly, the following ORDER (ij The writ petition isallowed. (ii) The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) aated10-4-1989issetaside. (iii) In the facts and ciFcumstances-ofthecase.thepartiesare direoted to bear their own costs in this petitkin^ (iv) Ordered accofdingly. ;•—^^, " ^'~- l-'-' ChiefJustice ; j ^. ^ <•