Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a hotel running under the name and style of M/s. The Rice Bowl. He has filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the order at Annexure-E, dated 21-11-1998 passed by the first respondent Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority in Case No. L.O.B-3/M.W.A/CR 10/98 in exercise of the power under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Respondents 2 to 15 are the employees of the petitioner. They have filed a petition represented by the President, Bangalore District Hotel Labourers' Association complaining to the first respondent that the petitioner is not implementing the minimum wages as per the Government Order No. SWL 25 LMW 91, dated 19-2-1994. On the said petition the first respondent registered a case and notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner wrote a letter seeking time. Thereafter, neither the petitioner nor his Counsel appeared before the first respondent to oppose the claim of the employees.
3. In support of the claim, the employees adduced evidence and produced certain documents. In the evidence adduced on behalf of the employees it is stated that there are 51 employees working in the hotel as Waiters ever since the establishment was started in 1992; that no appointment orders had been issued to them; that they were working for 10 hours every day; that they were not given National and Festival holidays; that the petitioner was paying a salary of Rs. 1,050-00 to them per month without issuing any salary slip; that apart from the Salary Register, signatures used to be obtained on blank vouchers affixed with revenue stamps and that even after the Senior Labour Inspector inspected the establishment and conducted enquiry, minimum wages was not paid to the employees. They have claimed the difference of minimum wage. The representation submitted to the Senior Labour Inspector in this regard was marked as Ex. C-1. The details of the employees was marked as Ex. C-2. The identity card issued to the employees was marked as Exs. C-3 to C-8. The power of authorisation issued by them to the Employees Union was marked as Ex. C-9. They have requested for grant of arrears of minimum wage, Dearness Allowance from 1-4-1996 to 31-7-1998 together with tenfold compensation. In separate affidavits filed by the employees, the details of the salary paid to each have been furnished.
4. The first respondent, considering the material and evidence available before him, has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,16,469-20 within thirty days of the order. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order the explanation of the employees for the delay in preferring the claim petition has been considered, accepted and the delay has been condoned. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.
5. Admittedly the petitioner has not appeared before the first respondent and opposed the claim of the employees. Having sought for time once, the petitioner did not turn-up thereafter. The first respondent considered the evidence and the material produced by the employees in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order and passed the order. In the absence of opposition to the claim and in view of the material produced and evidence adduced by the employees, the first respondent had no other option but to accept the claim put forth by the employees. The first respondent has rightly allowed the claim and no fault can be found with the impugned order.
6. The reasons assigned by the petitioner for his non-appearance before the first respondent are found in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the writ petitions. The sum and substance of the reason is that during the month of August 1998 the petitioner was out of station; that the notice sent by the first respondent was received by the Manager of the petitioner; that the Manager replied that since petitioner was not in station, he was not in a position to take any action in the matter and requested for time. It is alleged that petitioner was not afforded opportunity to make necessary arrangements to enter his appearance before the first respondent.
7. The explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing. In paragraph 5 of the petitions the petitioner has stated that he was out of station during the month of August 1998. The petitioner himself has produced the notice sent by the first respondent as per Annexure-D. It is dated 10-9-1998. Thus, the notice was served during September 1998. Petitioner's absence in the station was during the month of August 1998. The petitioner has not stated when he came back to the home station. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was out of station in the month of September 1998 also when the notice was served. The explanation, on the face of it, is false.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order was passed on 21-11-1998. The petitioner's absence from the station was during the month of August 1998. He could have put in his appearance before the first respondent soon after arrival to the station. That has not been done. The opportunity provided to him was not availed by the petitioner. In spite of that it is asserted by the petitioner at paragraph 6 that the impugned order has been passed without affording him the legitimate opportunity of being heard. Once notice was served, it was for the petitioner or his Manager to follow the proceedings from time to time. Having received the notice during the month of September, they should not have kept quiet until the impugned order was passed during the third week of November. The fault lies with the petitioner and not with thefirst respondent. The first respondent cannot sit quiet waiting for the arrival of the petitioner before him. The first respondent has discharged his part of the statutory duty and the petitioner has failed to discharge his obligation. He has to blame himself for his own conduct. Having neglected the proceedings, he cannot make a grievance of it before this Court.
9. One of the plea taken in the writ petitions is that respondents 2 to 14 were not at all the employees of the petitioner. At page 10 of the writ petition it is stated that the Attendance Register produced as Annexure-C do not show that the respondents 2 to 14 were under the employment of the petitioner. Even the Identity Cards produced by the employees have been disputed stating that they are fictitious. The stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petitions cannot be accepted. Exs. C-3, C-5, C-7 and C-8 were the Identity Cards produced and marked before the first respondent. It is stated in the evidence that in Ex. C-3 the petitioner has signed at Ex. C-4. On the Identity Cards marked as Exs. C-5, C-7 and C-8 the Manager of the petitioner has signed. The first respondent considered the documentary evidence produced by the employees and the corroborating evidence and came to the conclusion that they are the employees of the petitioner. The petitioner should have taken all these grounds before the first respondent and proved the same. Having not done so, he is estopped from raising such pleas before this Court. Even otherwise also, all these being a disputed questions of fact, the same cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The documents produced in these petitions for the months of November 1998 on words which are of no assistance to their case, hence the same are not accepted by this Court.
10. It is also seen from the notice at Annexure-D issued by the first respondent that the impugned order has not been passed all of a sudden and behind the back of the petitioner. The notice indicates that conciliation meetings were held on 19-8-1998, 24-8-1998 and 10-9-1998 but the petitioner has remained absent. Thus, notice of the proceedings in the claims of the workmen might have been issued much prior to 19-8-1998 when the first hearing date was given. Therefore, the averment of the petitioner in page 9 of the petitions that 'the petitioner has been kept in dark throughout the proceedings' is totally false.
11. In para 2 of the writ petitions it is stated that for all the employees employed by the petitioner identity cards have not been issued. However, in page 5 it is stated that 'though the petitioner was in the habit of issuing Identity Cards to each of his employees, yet no Identity Card has been produced'. Thus, petitioner approached this Court with conflicting versions and not with clean hands. On this score also the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
12. None of the contentions raised in the petitions find favour to the petitioner. The impugned order do not attract interference by this Court. The petitions are devoid of merit.
13. Petitions are rejected.