ORDER
1. One K. Venkateswarlu worked as cleaner with the APSRTC Depot, Chirala. He was paid 0-25 ps., per bus subject to a maximum of Rs.6/- per day for cleaning and washing the buses. During the inspection, the Inspector of Minimum Wages found that the APSRTC, which is a schedule employment, did not pay the minimum wages to the cleaner. He estimated the relief of at Rs.1,307/- from 26-11-1997 to 31-12-1997. Therefore, the Assistant Labour Officer-1 filed M.W. Case No.39 of 1998 claiming minimum wages of Rs.1,307/- to Venkateswarlu. in the counter-affidavit filed by the RTC represented by the Depot Manager and Regional Manager, inter alia they stated as follows:-
;'It is further stated that the opposite parties undertake to pay minimum wages if the Hon'ble Court pleases to order'.
2. The Minimum Wages Authority by an elaborate order dated 29-5-1999 relying on Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948 (the Act, for brevity) directed the RTC to pay the difference of minimum wages of Rs.1,307/- with five times penalty of Rs.6,535/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the RTC has approached this Court.
3. As the Minimum Wages Authority has given cogent reasons and also relied on the confession made by the opposite party before him, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Before parting with the case, this Court is constrained to make a few observations with regard to tiling of cases by fully owned Government Undertakings, Statutory Corporations and other Companies/ Corporations. These Corporations or Undertakings are trustees of public monies. The monies entrusted to them shall be held by them in public trust and should be utilised in a rational manner for valid and sustainable purposes. Of late, this Court has come across many petitions for judicial review against the orders passed by the Statutory Tribunals and Statutory Authorities which ultimately face failure before this Court as this Court ordinarily does not interfere with findings of facts. It cannot be gainsaid that most of the Statutory Tribunals and other authorities dispose of the cases after appreciation of evidence and recording a finding of fact. Though the authorities are well aware of this, for purposes other than the purpose of justice, cases are being filed in a routine manner without proper application of mind. The casual litigation set in motion by bureaucracy ultimately does not serve any purpose and may have negative impact on the 'performing Government' and sound administration.
5. Therefore, it is the wish of this Court that ail the Law Departments/Legal branches/cells attached to Stale Government Undertakings or Statutory Corporation should appiy their mind with reference to case law decided by the Supreme Court and this Court and in some cases with reference to the cases of same Corporation and then put up a note to the highest possible officials for obtaining approval for filing case. In that manner, the workman or other persons who obtain the benefit in the Statutory Tribunal or other forums may not be necessarily dragged to the Courts. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGCv. CCE, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 432, has categorically laid down that when there is a dispute between two Corporations,unless alternative dispute resolution methods are availed and explored, those Corporations should not rush to Courts.
6. In obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ONGC case (supra), the Cabinet Secretary to Government of India submitted a report to the effect that all disputes regardless of (he type should be resolved amicably by mutual consultation or through the good offices of empowered agencies of the Government or through arbitration and recourse to litigation should be eliminated. Noticing the report, the Supreme Court in ONGC v. Collector of Centra! Excise, 1995 Supp. (5) SCC 541, directed as under:
'We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between the Ministry and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of India and Public Sector Undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for the litigation. Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior Officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline.'
In the light of the above directions of the Supreme Court, this Court is justified in making these remarks.
7. It would be appropriate and constitutional for the Government and all other Public Sector Undertakings to take measures as directed by the Supreme Court in ONGC case supra. To avoid arbitrarinessin decision making as to filing of cases in the Courts on behalf of the Government as well as the Public Sector Undertakings and to have uniform litigation management systems, it is better if the Government comes forward in right earnest with the procedure to be followed by all the officials before taking the case to the Court of Law.
8. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary and Law Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as well as the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Public Enterprises Management Board/Commissioner of Public Enterprises for taking necessary action for communicating a copy of this order as well the guidelines to be framed by the Government to all the Government officials and Public Sector Undertakings, to take action in the light of the observations made herein above.
9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.