(1) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22 - 7 - 1986 of the 1st respondent herein in m w no. 102/86. By the aforesaid order the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of rs. 14,244,66 ps. Representing minimum wage allegedly short paid in respect of 530 workers the 1st respondent also required the petitioner to pay a like sum of rs. 14,244 - 66 paise by way of compensation under section 20 (3) of the minimum wages act ("the act" fof short). The relevant facts m ay be noticed.
(2) The petitioner is engaged in the business of tobacco grading. The business is carried on at medarametla village in prakasaam district. For the purpose of grading the tobacco, the petitioner engages a large number of workers. The minimum wage payable to graders is fixed from time to time by the government by issue of orders g o ms. No. 467 dated 7 - 7 - 1982 issued by the government required the payment of minimum wage of rs. 10. 12 paise to all graders etc. This g o continued to be in vogue till september, 1936. There is no dispute concerning the payment of minimum wages by the petitioner to the workmen for tho period from july, 1982 to autust, 1985. It does not also appear that there is any dispute regarding the payment of minimum wage by the petitioner to the workmen for the month of october, 1985 and the succeeding months. Curiously the dispute relates to one single month in september, 1985.
(3) The petitioner paid the wages to the workmen relating to the month of september, 1985 on 9 - 10 - 1985, 10 - 10 - 1985 and 11 - 10 - 1985. It is said that the payment of wages on 9 - 10 - 1985 was made in the presence of d moulali, assistant labour officer, chinaganjam. It is also stated that substantial portion of the wages was paid on that very date. A small portion of the wages was paid to the workers on 10 - 10 - 1985 and 11 - 10 - 1985 as these workers did not report on 9 - 10 - 1985 to receive the wages there is no dispute that when the wages were paid on 10 - 10 - 1985 and 11 - 10 - 1985 the assistant labour officer was not present. It does not, however, appear that there is any statutory provision requiring the employers to pay the wages in the presence of the authorities under the act, although for reasons of convenience and careful implementation of the orders concerning the payment of minimum wages the assistant labour officers were informed regarding the dates of payment and the officers make it convenient to be present on the dates of payment. This is largely done to ensure that the employers pay the full amount of wages fixed by the government.
(4) The assistant labour officer, ongole, respondent no 3 herein, filed a claim petition before the authority under the minimum wages act, 1st respondent herein, stating that on 9 - 10 - 1985 the petitioner paid the wages to workmen for the month of september, 1985 at the stipulated rate of rs. 10 - 12. It was also admitted that on 10 - 10 - 1985 and 11 - 10 - 85 payment was made at the rate of rs. 10 - 12. It is, howerer, alleged that after the payment was made to the workmen at the above rate, the petitioner collected re 1 - 62 baek from each workman through the maistries employed. On receiving the claim petition from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent herein put the petitioner on notice and required him to show cause why he should not be directed to make good the amounts allegedly collected back from the workmen and also direct the petitioner to pay compensation equal to ten times of wage short paid. The petitioner denied the allegations and asserted that the full wage was paid to the workers for the month of september, 1985 and no part of it was recovered back. The 1st respondent declined to accept the petitioner's explanation and eventually held that the petitioner ought to pay to the workmen rs 14,244 - 66 representing the minimum wages for september' 1985 forcibly recovered from the workers. The 1st respondent also directed the petitioner to pay the compensation of rs. 14,24466 under section 20 (3) of the act. The aforesaid order of the 1st respondent is assailed in the present writ petition.
(5) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, sri a krishnamurthy, and also the learned government pleader. The claim of the 3rd respondent is that he received a telephone call from the sarpaneh of daivala ravooru village on 11 - 10 - 1985 at 5 p m,, (sri nookathoti nageswara rao) alleging that after the payment of wages at rs, 10 - 12 the petitioner recovered from each workman re 1 - 62. It is further claimed that a post - card addressed to the 3rd respondent anonymously was received making a similar allegation on receipt of the above information, the third respondent visited daivala ravooru village on 14 - 10 - 1985 and made certain enquiries which showed that the above allegations were correct. It is also submitted that on 14 - 10 - 1985 the 3rd respondent visited the petitioner's business premises at medarametla village and at about luncheon time met all the workmen who complanied that the petitioner recovered forcibly rs. 1 - 62 iron each worker from out of the wages paid for the month of september, 1985. It is stated that the workmen gave two representations dated 14 - 10 - 1985. Exs. P - 4 and p - 5. Making the aforesaid allegations. This is the extent and nature of evidence relied on by the 1st respondent in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner recovered re. 1 - 62 from each worker from the out of the wages paid for the month of september, 1985.
(6) It should be borne in mind that in - making an enquiry into the claim petition filed by the 3rd respondent the 1st respondent acts in quasi - judicial capacity and he should ensure that no prejudice is caused to the employer by failure to follow the rules of natural justice. Whatever evidence is in possession of the authorities must be squarely put to the employer and his explanation should be obtained. Under no circumstances should tre 1st respondent rely on evidence gathered behind back of the employer. It is imperative in each case to put the employers on notice regarding the nature of enquiries and the result of enquiries made behind their back and to give them every opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. In a ease where the workmen themselves made a representation directly alleging short payment of minimum wages or making far more serious allegations as in the present case that the employer recovered a part of the money after payment, the employer should be put on notice regarding such representation by workmen and be given an opportunity to show that the representation of the workman is untrue it is not open to the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry disregarding the above salutory principles and arrive at conclusions on evidence never put to the employers.
(7) It is worthwhile now to examine whether in the present case the 1st respondent followed the aforesaid principles governing an impartial and judicious enquiry into the matter. The first allegation is that a telephone call was received from the sarpanch of daivala ravooru village on 11 - 10 - 1985. It is the duty of the 3rd respondent to establish personal contact with the sarpanch and elicit from him whether he made any telephone call and if so whether there is any truth in the allegation that the petitioner recovered a part of the wage paid for the month of september, 1985. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent did not contact the sarpanch. In the absence of corroboration from the sarpanch the 1st respondent cannot rely on the alleged telephone call on 11 - 10 - 85 the second item of evidence is the post - card anonymously addressed to the 3rd respondent. For one thing, no cognizance can be taken on anonymous petitions as in their very nature the contents of the petition are not verifiable. Not only has the post - card been relied upon, but curiously it is marked as an exhibit (ex p - 2) by the 1st respondent. A document cannot be marked as an exhibit unless it is proved. In the case of an anonymous letter it is imperssible to mark the document as an exhibit as in the very nature of things the letter cannot be proved. Since the alleged author of the post - card has not come forward to make any representation, no reliance can be placed on the post - card received by the 3rd respondent. The third item of evidence is the enquiries made by the 3rd respondent at oaivala ravooru village on 14 - 10 - 1985. It is not clear why the 3rd respondent should have made enquiries at the aforesaid village if the business premises of the petitioner is situate in medarametla village. Be that as it may, there is absolutely no indication as to who are the persons whom the 3rd respondent had contacted at daivala, ravooru village, on 14 - 10 - 1985, the nature of enquiries and the information gathered during the course of the enquiry. There is no identification of the persons whom the 3rd respondent had cantacted at the village. It is not denied that the petitioner was not put in possession of the nature and result of enquiries made by the 3rd respondent at daivala ravooru village. The petitioner had no opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal as the identity of the persons whom the 3rd respondent had contacted at the village was not revealed. It is, therefore, impermissible for the 1st respondent to rely on these enquiries. Coming finally to the more vital piece of evidence viz. , the enquiries made by the 3rd respondent at medarametla village, it must be observed that the entire procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent is faulty. If all or any of the workers made a representation to him that the petitioner forcibly recovered a part of the wages paid for the month of september, 1985 it is the duty of the 1st respondent to put the matter squarely to the petitioner for appropriate explanation. These represementations allegedly given by the workers on 14 - 10 - 1985 are marked as exs. P - 4 and p - 5. Ex. P - 4 contains the thumb impressions of three persons who described themselves as workmen. Ex. P - 5 does not contain any signatures or thumb impressions although it is shown to have been made by 112 workmen. Ex. P - 5 contained certain submissions to the effect that the workmen cannot give any evidence against the employer and there is a request that the 3rd respondent should act without disclosing the identity of the persons concerned. The 1st respondent thought fit to rely on the representations dated 14 - 10 - 1985 without disclosing the contents of the representations to the petitioner and without also giving any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. If a specific and serious allegation is made against the petitioner by any one of the workmen, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to explain. If the workmen making allegations are not willing to comeforward, the 1st respondent cannot act upon their representations. It must be borne in mind that rules of natural justice require that a person can not be visited with any consequences unless he has notice of acts of omission and commission alleged against him. It is not possible to accept the plea that what all it stated by the workmen is sactosanct and wholly true and whatever is stated by the petitioner who is an employer must be rejected. There is no presumption that only workmen speak the truth and employers do not. While, broadly speaking, there is a general tendency on the part of employers, who are mighty and strong, to exploit the workmen, there is also equal possibility of the work men trying to harass an employer by making unfounded allegations. If the 1st respondent, making a quasi - judicial enquiry into the whole matter, should like to take cognizance of the representations made to him by the workmen, the workmen should be warned that they must stand the test of cross - examination by the employer as otherwise it will not be possible to act unilaterally on the representations made by them without giving the employer an opportunity. This is precisely what happened in the present case. On the ground that the workmen are likely to be victimised the 1st respondent chose to believe the uncorroborated testimony of persons who are not even identified as workmen and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had recovered re 1 32 from each workman from the wages for the month of september, 1985. The procedure adopted by the 1st respondent is wholly faulty and does not accord with the norms prescribed for making an impartial, unbiassed and judicious enquiry by a quasi - judicial authority. It also appears very strange that no allegation of any non - payment of minimum wage was made against the petitioner between july, 1982 and august, 1985 (nearly three years). It is difficult to believe that the petitioner could have acted dishonestly only in the month of september, 1985. There is again no allegation about any dishonest act on the part of the petitioner subsequent to september, 1985.
(8) The evidence relied on by the 1st respondent and referred to above, does not inspire confidence. The 1st respondent has grossly erred in relying on untrustworthy and uncorroborated evidence. In the circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order of the 1st respondent. It is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate's fee rs. 250/ -.