1. Premier Tobacco Packers (Private), Ltd., in Prakasam district, is the petitioner herein. It seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the second respondent herein, in M.W.C No. 17 of 1985, dated 5 March, 1986.
2. The Assistant Labour Officer, Kandukur, the first respondent herein, filed a petition on 14 March, 1985, before the second respondent claiming payment of minimum wages to the extent of Rs. 1,27,216.65 in respect of 647 workers employed by the petitioner in its factory. It is stated in the claim petition that the petitioner, engaged in the business of grading and processing tobacco, employed a large number of workers and failed to pay the minimum wages prescribed by Government to the workers. It was mentioned in the claim petition that, during the period of August 1984 to June 1985, in respect of male workers, although the minimum wage fixed was Rs. 11.35 for eight hours of work, the petitioner had been paying only Rs. 9, the shortfall for each male worker being Rs. 2.35 It was also claimed that, in respect of female workers, against the prescribed minimum wage of Rs. 10.12, the petitioner had been paying only Rs. 7, the shortfall for each female worker being Rs. 3.12 In the annexure accompanying the claim petition, the first respondent claimed that, in respect 336 male workers, there was a short payment of minimum wages to the extent of Rs. 59,446.25 and in respect 211 female workers, there was a short payment of Rs. 67,770. The first respondent accordingly quantified the shortfall in the minimum wages paid by the petitioner at Rs. 1,27,216.65 in respect of 647 workers. The first respondent also claimed compensation under S. 21 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (the Act for short), to the extent of ten times the amount of minimum wages paid.
3. After receiving the aforesaid claim petition, the second respondent, who is the Authority under the Act, issued a notice, dated 14 March, 1985, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the claim petition filed by the first respondent should not be admitted. The matter was fixed for hearing on 25 March, 1985. The petitioner filed the necessary objections. After considering the objections filed by the petitioner and examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as the labour officials, the second respondent came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner regarding the non-payment of minimum wages was established and accordingly upheld the claim of the first respondent for payment of Rs. 1,27,216 to 647 workers employed by the petitioner in its factory. As regards the compensation under S. 21 of the Act, the second respondent did not agree with the claim for payment of ten times the shortfall, but mercifully directed the petitioner to pay twice the amount of the wages so paid by way of compensation to the workers. The result was that the petitioner was called upon to pay the minimum wages to 647 workers to the extent of Rs. 1,27,216.65 and also compensation under S 21 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2,54,433.30 aggregating in all to Rs. 3,81,648.95. It is this order of the second respondent that is challenged in the present writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Srinivasamurthy, and the learned Government Pleader, Sri Sitharam.
5. The facts would reveal that, on 25 January, 1985, the second respondent, who is also the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, visited the petitioner's factory. He made the following endorsement in the muster-rolls for January 1985:
“The females are paid at Rs. 7 per day for a period of 8 hours duty from 6.00 A.M to 2-00 P.M and at Rs. 10.50 for a period of 12 hours duty from 6.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M with an hour rest interval, whereas the registers are fraudulently maintained as if Rs. 10.12 is paid per eight hours duty for all females and at Rs. 9.00 for eight hours duty for all males and Rs. 13.50 for 12 hours duty for males. This is highly irregular.”
Shortly after this endorsement was made, the Labour Inspector had undertaken enquiry into the matter (to be precise on 8 February, 1985) and after concluding the enquiry, put up the claim petition before the second respondent on 14 March, 1985. The close proximity of the enquiries and investigations made by the Labour Inspector to the date of visit by the second respondent does certainly indicate that, perhaps, the Labour Inspector had undertaken the enquiry and investigation at the instance of the second respondent, who is also the quasi-judicial authority to consider any claims made by the first respondent. Sri Srinivasamurthy claims that the second respondent, being already prejudiced, induced the first respondent to submit the claim petition. Whatever may be the foundation for the above suspicion, there, is no evidence supporting it. It is quite possible that the information was passed on by the second respondent to the first respondent for appropriate enquiry and after enquiry the first respondent might have submitted the report. On this ground alone, it is not possible to hold that the second respondent induced the first respondent to make the aforesaid claim and thus adjudicated the claim in a quasi-judicial capacity causing considerable prejudice to the petitioner. While there are no grounds to think that any prejudicial consideration has been brought to bear by the second respondent in the matter, it must be pointed out that the second respondent should conduct the proceedings in a such a way that no room is given for a complaint of this nature against him. Indeed, the endorsement made by the second respondent on 25 January, 1985 in the muster-roll for January 1985 contains some objectionable references. He mentions in the endorsement that “the registers are fraudulently maintained.” The question whether the registers are maintained fraudulently or not is a matter that can be ascertained only after appropriate enquiry into the matter. It would be thoroughly improper on the part of the second respondent to rush to the conclusion that the registers maintained by the petitioner were fraudulent without any enquiry into the matter and without the petitioner having had an opportunity to explain. Remarks of this nature would certainly lend an impression that the second respondent, a quasi-judicial authority to enquire into the adjudication of the claims, had already made up his mind and, therefore, the order passed by him was the result of such prejudice borne in mind. The second respondent would be well advised, even while making inspections in his executive capacity, to refrain from making comments, which are likely to be interpreted as prejudicial, in proceedings that may come before him subsequently in quasi-judicial capacity. Inasmuch as the second respondent has dealt with the matter at considerable length in his order, I would prefer to consider the material contained in the second respondent's order to evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the order instead of quashing the order straightway, as canvassed by Sri Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, as one borne out of prejudice. I would, therefore, consider the merits of the matter.
6. Learned Government Pleader, Sri Sitharam, has taken me through the order of the second respondent and invited my attention to the following aspect:
(i) The Inspector of Labour made a thorough enquiry into the matter and reported that the enquiries made by him indicated that the petitioner had not paid the minimum wage to the workers.
(ii) The enquiry was conducted on 8 February, 1985, and the interrogation of the workers and inspection continued for about ten hours during which time information was elicited from the workers. It is stated that the workers categorically stated that the petitioner-management has not been paying the minimum wage.
(iii) The Labour Inspector, who enquired into the matter, did not know the names of the workers; nor did he record any formal statements, as the workers were unwilling to come forward and reveal their identity for fear that their services might be dispensed with if information leaked out that they made a complaint to the Labour Inspector regarding the non-payment of the prescribed minimum wage by the petitioner-management.
(iv) The records and registers produced during the course of the enquiry by the petitioner management contained innumerable alterations and corrections, which, according to the learned Government Pleader, constitute tell-tale evidence of the petitioner not having paid the minimum wage. Attention is invited to the fact that the number of thumb impressions of the workers were more than those of the actual workers to whom the wages were paid. This indicated that the registers were written up at a stretch and were not maintained contemporaneously evidencing actual payment of wages.
(v) At any rate, there are two independent witnesses, who vouchsafed the correctness of the enquiries made. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5. It is stated that P.W 4 is the secretary of the “Zilla Pogaku Karmika Sangham” and P.W 5 is a social worker, who is also the president of tobacco workers union in Prakasam district. It is pointed out that the testimony of these two witnesses goes to support the claim of the first respondent that the minimum wage was not being paid by the petitioner-management.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Srinivasamurthy, joined issue in most of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and pointed out that the uncorroborated report of the Labour Inspector cannot form the basis for a claim against the petitioner management. It is urged that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the workers were not receiving the minimum wages prescribed.
8. A somewhat similar problem had arisen in another case alleging short payment of minimum wages to 530 workers. I had dealt with this matter at considerable length in Writ Petition No. 12764 of 1986, dated 17 February, 1987, broadly indicating certain guidelines on which investigation and enquiry should be made and the character of evidence that is necessary for upholding a case against the management employing the workers. While there may be considerable force in the submission that there is exploitation of the workers by the management and that the workers are unwilling to come forward and swear that they were not paid minimum wages for fear that they might be ousted from service, it is not possible to uphold orders imposing enormous pecuniary liabilities merely on the basis of suspicion. An order imposing a monetary liability caused by violation of provisions of a statute cannot be upheld except in the presence of strict proof. Howsoever strong the suspicion may be regarding the circumstances alleged by the second respondent, it is impossible to sustain the order merely on the basis of the uncorroborated enquiries made. It is fairly pointed out that there is no indication of the persons whom the Labour Inspector had interrogated. Their statements were not formally recorded. There is not even a mention of the names of the workers who had been interrogated. After all, if the Labour Inspector has been canvassing support for the aforementioned plea and he is also very familiar with the situation where workers do not usually come forward with statements against the management for fear that they may be ousted from employment, nothing prevented the Labour Inspector to take along with him some respectable witnesses, in whose presence the interrogation of the workers could have been made and those respectable witnesses could have vouchsafed the correctness of the testimony of the workers. In the present case, the Labour Inspector admits that there was not a single person present when he was examining the workers. This, I consider, is a wholly erroneous procedure adopted by the Labour Inspector. He had to conduct the interrogation in the presence of the witnesses whose testimony can later be verified and a Court can independently come to the conclusion that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the evidence of such respectable witnesses could be acted upon to the detriment of the management. The evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5, on which the learned Government Pleader placed considerable reliance, does not, in my opinion, advance the case further, as they were not the persons present at the time when the Labour Inspector interrogated the workmen. They were examined independently and they deposed to certain facts. They were later on examined during the course of enquiry; but then their evidence was totally uncorroborated. It is extremely unsafe to act on the uncorroborated testimony of two outsiders and support a conclusion that the petitioner-management is guilty of not paying the minimum wage for as large a number of workers as 647.
9. I have carefully looked into the discrepancies listed out by the second respondent in the registers. It is stated that, at a number of places, additional amounts were recorded under the amounts originally shown. The frequent occurrences of such additional amounts, according to the second respondent, are indicative of the fact that the registers were manipulated. An inference of manipulation of registers could be drawn if there is a cogent connection between the entries originally made and the alleged entries made subsequently in the registers. Now, for instance, at various places, below the wages originally noted, a further a sum of Rs. 10 was also recorded. Now what does this second item of Rs. 10 indicate? Could it be said that this figure of Rs. 10 was recorded in order to show that the minimum wage was paid? The answer is obviously no, because, if the claim is that the petitioner had been paying to the males wages of Rs. 9 and females Rs. 7, the short payment ought to be much more than Rs. 10 and other similar denominations noted on number of occasions. If some intelligible connection could be established between the entries initially recorded and the entries subsequently made, significance can be attached to the entries in the books. No endeavour is made by the second respondent to examine the matter from that point of view and establish a connection between the entries subsequently made and the entries initially recorded. There is no evidence to indicate that the amounts noted in the register were subsequently made. The fact that numerous instances of such corrections existed in the registers does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the registers were manipulated for the purpose of showing the payment of wages not paid to the workers.
10. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am unable uphold the order of the second respondent requiring the petitioner to pay wages of Rs. 1,27,216.65 to the 647 workers and compensation of Rs. 2,54,433-30. The order is accordingly set aside. I must, however, mention that this does not prevent the authorities concerned to make a more careful investigation into the matter and take appropriate action, if evidence is forthcoming to establish the guilt of the petitioner in the matter. Any further enquiry or investigation into these matters, if it is considered expedient to under take, should not be taken up by the second respondent against whom apprehensions are raised that there may be a failure of justice. If an investigation is sought to be made further into the matter, it must be by an independent authority like the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, who is also concurrently the Authority under the Minimum wages Act.
11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 300.