RAGINI SINHAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

68                      [2019]
              SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 68
                             REPORTS                     [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A                              RAGINI SINHA
                                      v.
                         STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7225 of 2012)
B                            JANUARY 07, 2019
     [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
            Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Claim petitions filed by two
     persons (applicants) against the appellant under the 1948 Act –
     Grievance of applicants was that they worked with appellant on
C
     her land for about 2 years but she did not pay them their legitimate
     wages – Competent authority allowed the claim petitions and
     imposed penalty also on the appellant – Appellate authority upheld
     the order of competent authority – High Court dismissed the writ
     petitions – On appeal, held: No case for interference made out –
D    Question as to whether the two workers ever worked with the
     appellant and, if so, for how much period and how much wages
     were payable to them by their employer were the material questions,
     which were gone into by the competent authority and appellate
     authority and decided in favour of the two workers – A concurrent
     finding of fact recorded on these issues was binding on the High
E
     Court while deciding the writ petitions and the intra Court appeals
     – Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions inter alia on the
     ground of non-impleadment of the two workers in whose favour the
     orders were passed by the authorities under the Act as they were
     necessary parties in the writ petitions – Impleadment application
F    filed by appellant in the intra Court appeals after a long lapse of
     time was rightly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches –
     Moreover, in the meantime, both the workers also expired and their
     legal representatives were not made parties either in the intra Court
     appeals or in these appeals – This ground was, therefore, enough
     for dismissal of the writ petitions, intra Court appeals and these
G
     appeals – Appellant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to defend
     and which she also availed of – That apart, no case of prejudice
     was made out by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings –
     Having regard to the nature of breaches committed by the appellant
     and which were held proved, the authority was justified in imposing
H
                                      68
              RAGINI SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR                           69


the penalty on her – Authority has the power under the Act to impose   A
the penalty, once the breaches alleged against the employer are
proved – The appellate authority, the writ Court and the Division
Bench in their respective jurisdiction rightly did not interfere on
any of these issues – Appellant is directed to calculate the amount
payable to the two workers and pay to their legal representatives –
                                                                       B
Necessary party – Delay/laches – Labour laws.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: What is involved in this case is a pure question of
fact which cannot be gone into in these appeals. A concurrent
finding of fact recorded on these issues by the two authorities        C
was binding on the High Court while deciding the writ petitions
and the intra Court appeals. The claim in question relates to the
year 1991 and pertains to the payment of minimum wages payable
to two workers, who are now dead and not represented before
this Court. However, the appellant has not been able to make
out any case on merits. The only grievance of the appellant before     D
the High Court was that she was not afforded an adequate
opportunity in the proceedings and secondly penalty imposed by
the authorities on her was excessive in quantum and hence either
it should be set aside or reduced to some extent. There is no
merit in these submissions. The appellant was afforded a sufficient    E
opportunity to defend and which she also availed of. That apart,
no material was produced by the appellant at any stage of the
proceedings to show that any prejudice was caused to her. Having
regard to the nature of breaches committed by the appellant and
which were held proved, the authority was justified in imposing
the penalty on the appellant. The authority has the power under        F
the Act to impose the penalty, once the breaches alleged against
the employer are proved. The appellant is directed to calculate
the entire amount payable to the two workers (since dead) in
terms of the impugned orders and the same be paid to the legal
representatives of the two workers within three months from            G
the date of this order. [Paras 12, 17 and 19][71-E, F; 72-B-E, G]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
7224-7225 of 2012.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 530 and 620 of 1998.          H
70            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A          Vivek Singh, Swastik Dalai, Santosh Kumar - I, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
           Gopal Singh, Vivek Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are
     directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 passed
     by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.530/1998 and order
     dated 18.01.2008 in LPA No.620/1998 whereby the High Court dismissed
     the appeals filed by the appellant herein and confirmed the orders of the
     Single Judge dated 31.03.1998 passed in CWJC No.12009/1996 and
C    dated 22.04.1998 in CWJC No.12010/1996.
          2. The controversy involved in these appeals lies in a narrow
     compass as would be clear from the few facts mentioned hereinbelow.
            3. Two persons, namely, Santosh Kumar and Hira Singh filed
D    their claim petitions before the competent authority under the Minimum
     Wages Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) against the appellant herein being
     case Nos. MW (2) - 19/93 and MW (2) - 20/93.
           4. In these claim petitions, the respondents claimed that they had
     worked with the appellant on her land for the period from 01.01.1991 to
     30.10.1992 but she did not pay them their legitimate wages despite
E
     rendering their services for her.
            5. This, in substance, was their grievance. The two applicants
     (workers/employees), therefore, claimed that their legitimate wages for
     the period in question be determined in the light of the provisions of the
     Act and the claimants be accordingly paid their minimum wages for the
F
     period in question by the appellant.
            6. The appellant contested the matter. An enquiry was accordingly
     held. Report from the concerned authority was also called for. By order
     dated 29.10.1995 the competent authority allowed the claim petitions of
     the two workers and accordingly directed the appellant (employer) to
G    pay them wages as determined along with the penalty amount awarded
     by the authority.
           7. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the appellate
     authority under the Act. By order dated 08.10.1996, the appellate authority
     dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the competent authority.
H
                RAGINI SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR                                71
                 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High     A
Court at Patna. By orders dated 31.03.1998 and 22.04.1998, the Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The appellant felt
aggrieved and filed LPAs before the Division Bench in the High Court.
By impugned orders, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals, which
have given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by the
                                                                              B
appellant(employer) in this Court.
      9. The short question, which arises for consideration in these
appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the orders
passed by the two authorities under the Act.
      10. We have heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the              C
appellant and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and
have also perused the written submissions filed by the counsel for the
appellant.
      11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case and the written submissions of the learned          D
counsel, we find no merit in these appeals.
       12. In our considered opinion, no case has been made out to call
for any interference in the impugned orders for more than one reason.
Firstly, what is involved in this case is a pure question of fact which
cannot be gone into in these appeals; Secondly, the question as to whether    E
the two workers ever worked with the appellant and, if so, for how
much period and how much wages were payable to them by their
employer are the material questions, which were gone into by the
competent authority and appellate authority and decided in favour of the
two workers. A concurrent finding of fact recorded on these issues by
the two authorities was binding on the High Court while deciding the          F
writ petitions and the intra Court appeals; Thirdly, the writ Court rightly
dismissed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that two workers in
whose favour the orders had been passed by the authorities under the
Act were necessary parties in the writ petitions and since they were not
impleaded in the writ petitions, the writ petitions were liable to be         G
dismissed on this ground alone; Fourthly, even in the intra Court appeals,
the appellant though filed an application for their impleadment but it was
done after a long lapse of time and, therefore, the Division Bench rightly
dismissed the application on the ground of delay and laches. Moreover,
in the meantime, both the workers also expired and their legal
                                                                              H
72             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A    representatives were not made parties either in the intra Court appeals
     or in these appeals. This ground is, therefore, enough for dismissal of
     the writ petitions, intra Court appeals and these appeals.
           13. That apart, we find that the claim in question relates to the
     year 1991 and pertains to the payment of minimum wages payable to
B    two workers, who are now dead and not represented before this Court.
          14. Even then we examined the appellant’s case on merits. We,
     however, find that the appellant has not been able to make out any case
     on merits.
           15. The only grievance of the appellant before the High Court
C    was that she was not afforded an adequate opportunity in the proceedings
     and secondly penalty imposed by the authorities on her was excessive in
     quantum and hence either it should be set aside or reduced to some
     extent.
            16. We find no merit in the aforementioned submissions. In our
D    view, the appellant was afforded a sufficient opportunity to defend and
     which she also availed of. That apart, no material was produced by the
     appellant at any stage of the proceedings to show that any prejudice
     was caused to her. We also find that having regard to the nature of
     breaches committed by the appellant and which were held proved, the
E    authority was justified in imposing the penalty on the appellant.
            17. It is not in dispute that the authority has the power under the
     Act to impose the penalty, once the breaches alleged against the employer
     are proved. Neither the appellate authority, nor the writ Court and nor
     the Division Bench in their respective jurisdiction considered it proper to
F    interfere on any of these issues and, in our view, rightly.
            18. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in
     these appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.
             19. The appellant is directed to calculate the entire amount payable
     to the two workers (since dead) in terms of the impugned orders and the
G    same be paid to the legal representatives of the two workers within
     three months from the date of this order. Let the compliance report be
     submitted by the appellant within three months to this Court and also to
     the concerned competent authority.


H
                RAGINI SINHA v. STATE OF BIHAR                                73
                 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned competent             A
authority and one copy of this order be sent on the addresses of the two
deceased workers which are mentioned in the record of the case for the
information of their legal representatives so that they are able to
implement this order against the appellant for recovery of the awarded
sum in their favour.
                                                                              B

Devika Gujral                                            Appeals dismissed.




                                                                              C




                                                                              D




                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H