Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14367 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rugmark Foundation (Nursery School) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gajala Srivastava,Manish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.02.2021 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P., Mirzapur Region, Peperi, Sonbhadra in Case No. MW7/2018 (Sri Jai Prakash Narayan vs. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Regional Coordinator) Facts in nutshell are that respondent no. 3 along with 25 other employees of petitioner-Institution moved an application before the respondent no. 2 for the payment of minimum wages for the period Ist January, 2017 to 30th December, 2018. Acting on the said application, notice was issued to the Regional Coordinator of the Institution through Sanjeev Kumar Mishra as well as Director of M/s. Rugmark Foundation through Sri Sharda Subramanyam. Objection were filed wherein it was brought to the notice of the authorities that list of 26 employees filed before the authority includes the teaching as well as non- teaching staff of the Institution and the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were not applicable to the teaching staff. Further, records were placed as to the payment of wages to them. Considering the application as well as the objection, the authority found that out of list of 26 employees submitted, 12 were non-teaching staff and the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act was applicable and the Institution failed to pay the minimum wages to them. On calculation, a total outstanding amount of Rs.12,58,807/- was found due against the petitioner- Institution. Vide order dated 13.02.2021, the said deficiency was held and it was directed that Institution would deposit the said amount through bank draft before Deputy Labour Commissioner within one month.
Sri Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Prescribed Authority had wrongly held the 12 employees to be non-teaching staff of the Institution though they are the teaching staff and the provisions of the Act is not applicable on them. He further contended that the entire payment has been made to them and the Institution is closed since May, 2019 and the private respondents are not entitled for the claim made before the authority.
Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that the respondent no. 2 acting on the application of the employees of the Institution after receiving the objection of the Institution had arrived at a conclusion that out of list of 26 employees, 12 were non-teaching staff thus were entitled to the provisions of the Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I find that the order impugned was passed after giving full opportunity to the petitioner-Institution for bringing on record the material to substantiate that the list of employees included only the teaching staff and not the non-teaching staff. Further, this Court on 14.07.2021 had granted time to the counsel for the petitioner to bring on record the objection filed before the Labour Commissioner. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not place the objection filed before the Prescribed Authority. His only submission is to the extent that out of list of 26 employees as held by respondent no. 2 to be non-teaching staff many of them are teaching staff and not covered under the Act. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner had invited the attention of the Court to the settlement made by the petitioner-Institution in regard to the payment of gratuity of many of the employees, but the order impugned has been passed in the proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act wherein it has been found by respondent no. 2 that the employees were not paid the minimum wages by the Institution in question. Further, petitioner- Institution has failed to bring on record any document to substantiate the fact the the appointment of list of 12 employees given in the order impugned were appointed as teaching staff in the Institution and not in the category of non-teaching staff. Except the oral argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing on record before this Court nor it appears that any material was placed before the authority concerned who had passed the order impugned.
In view of above, no interference is required in the order dated 13.02.2021, granting minimum wages to the private respondents.
Writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 V.S.Singh