Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Seema Kanaujia Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-authority and anr.

Seema Kanaujia vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-authority and anr.

Disposition Writ allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Apr 04, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517536

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P. (L) No. 1357 of 2002
Subject
Labour and Industrial
Disposition
Writ allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition
Writ allowed
Acts & sections
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 15

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Seema Kanaujia

Advocate M.A. Khan, Adv.

Respondent

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-authority and anr.

Advocate Vinay Kumar Pathak, Addl. S.C., Central Govt.

Legal References

Acts
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Sections 15
Cases Referred
Binod Kumar v. Union of India
Reported In
[2002(95)FLR464]; (2003)ILLJ255Jhar

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderm.y. eqbal, j.1. heard the parties.2. the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 21.5.2001, passed by the regional labour commissioner, central. dhanbad, respondent no. 1-cum-authority under the mini mum wages act whereby he has held that a sum of rs. 35,350/- as less payment and compensation is payable by the petitioner to the workmen.3. it appears that at the instance of the labour enforcement officer, a complaint was made before respondent no. 1 alleging less payment by the petitioner to her workman engaged in the crushing of stone-chips. respondent no. 1 initiated a proceeding under the minimum wages act and passed the impugned order.4. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the patna high court in the case of binod kumar v. union of india, reported in 2000 llj (2) 692 and submitted that if there is a case of less payment then the jurisdiction is vested in the authorities under the payment of wages act,5. mr. b.k. pathak, learned standing counsel has not disputed the jurisdiction of the authority under the minimum wages aet to decide a question regarding less payment of wages to the workers.6. in the facts of the case. i am of the view that the order passed by the respondents exercising power under the minimum wages act is without jurisdiction and the same can not be sustained in law.7. this writ application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 21.5.2001, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Central. Dhanbad, respondent No. 1-cum-authority under the Mini mum Wages Act whereby he has held that a sum of Rs. 35,350/- as less payment and compensation is payable by the petitioner to the workmen.

3. It appears that at the instance of the Labour Enforcement Officer, a complaint was made before respondent No. 1 alleging less payment by the petitioner to her workman engaged in the crushing of stone-chips. Respondent No. 1 initiated a proceeding under the Minimum Wages Act and passed the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Binod Kumar v. Union of India, reported in 2000 LLJ (2) 692 and submitted that if there is a case of less payment then the jurisdiction is vested in the authorities under the payment of Wages Act,

5. Mr. B.K. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the jurisdiction of the authority under the Minimum Wages Aet to decide a question regarding less payment of wages to the workers.

6. In the facts of the case. I am of the view that the order passed by the respondents exercising power under the Minimum Wages Act is without jurisdiction and the same can not be sustained in law.

7. This writ application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial