RAGINI SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
RAGINI SINHA
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7225 of 2012)
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
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 –
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
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
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
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
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 68
68
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
the penalty on her – Authority has the power under the Act to impose
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 –
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
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
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
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
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
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.