Case Title : The Factory Manager Rccpl Through Uttam … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case no : Writ Petition No. 16946 of 2021
Order no : 2nd April, 2024
Quorum : Justice GurpFactory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.al Singh Ahluwalia
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madya Pradesh, challenging the order which was given in the case No.36/2020 which was passed on 6th August 2021 by the Assistant Commissioner, Rewa Division Santa. The order states that a compensation of amount Rs.70,46,638/- was supposed to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of impugned order as it was held that the petitioners had paid less overtime to 142 employees.
ISSUES
Whether the factum of payment of less overtime than the minimum rates of wages was the specific dispute or not ?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the Indian Constitution : Clearly states that every High Court has the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue writ or any order to any person or authority.
- Section 20 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS
The Petitioners contended that the order was passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who is not the competent authority to do so under the Minimum Wages Act. The Petitioners further submitted that the complaint which was filed was regarding non- payment of minimum wages and not less payment of overtime.They contended that the impugned order was unlawful.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
In contrast to the Petitioners arguments the State contends that all the commissioners appointed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have all the powers under Minimum Wages Act and further stated that the notice which was issued to the petitioners regarding less payment of overtime to the workers include non-payment of minimum wages also hence there was no prejudice caused
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court after looking at the contentions of both the parties ruled that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was not the competent person to pass the order regarding compensating the workers for less payment of overtime.
The court further stated that as the complaint was filed in a vague manner and the order passed was without proper authority, so the court set aside the said order and stated the competent authority to take up the issue.
The court further ordered the petitioners to appear before court without any further notice and directed the Workmen Compensation to decide the matter by conducting the proceedings de novo without relying upon any evidence by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full- service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY – Nagashree N M
