REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7224­7225 OF 2012

Ragini Sinha              ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Bihar & Ors.            …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated  18.01.2008  passed  by

the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA

No.530/1998 and order  dated  18.01.2008  in  LPA

No.620/1998 whereby the High Court dismissed the

appeals filed by the appellant herein and confirmed

the orders of the  Single Judge  dated  31.03.1998

1

passed in CWJC No.12009/1996 and   dated

22.04.1998 in CWJC No.12010/1996.

2) The controversy involved in these appeals lies

in a narrow compass as would be clear from the few

facts mentioned hereinbelow.

3) Two persons,   namely, Santosh  Kumar and

Hira Singh filed their claim petitions before the

competent authority under the Minimum  Wages

Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) against the appellant

herein being case Nos. MW (2) ­ 19/93 and MW (2) ­

20/93.

4) In these claim petitions, the respondents

claimed that they had worked with the appellant on

her land for the period from 01.01.1991 to

30.10.1992 but she did not pay them their

legitimate wages despite rendering their services for

her.

5) This,   in substance, was their grievance. The

two applicants (workers/employees), therefore,

2

claimed that their legitimate wages for the period in

question be determined in the light of the provisions

of the  Act  and  the  claimants  be  accordingly  paid

their minimum wages for the period in question by

the appellant.

6) The appellant contested the matter.   An

enquiry was accordingly held. Report from the

concerned authority was also called for.   By order

dated 29.10.1995 the competent authority allowed

the claim petitions of the two workers and

accordingly directed the appellant (employer) to pay

them wages as determined along with the penalty

amount awarded by the authority.  

7) The  appellant felt  aggrieved  and filed  appeal

before the appellate authority under the Act. By

order dated 08.10.1996, the appellate authority

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the

competent authority.  

3

8) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed writ

petition in the High Court at Patna. By orders dated

31.03.1998 and 22.04.1998, the Single Judge of the

High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The

appellant felt  aggrieved  and filed  LPAs  before the

Division  Bench in the  High  Court. By impugned

orders, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals,

which have given rise to filing of these appeals by

way of  special leave by  the appellant(employer) in

this Court.

9) The short question, which arises for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the High

Court was justified in upholding the orders passed

by the two authorities under the Act.

10) We have heard Mr. Vivek Singh, learned

counsel for the appellant and  Mr. Gopal Singh,

learned counsel for the respondents and have also

perused the written submissions filed by the

counsel for the appellant.

4

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case and

the written submissions of the learned counsel, we

find no merit in these appeals.

12) In our considered opinion, no case has been

made out to call for any interference in the

impugned orders for more than one reason. Firstly,

what is involved in this case is a pure question of

fact  which cannot  be  gone  into in these  appeals;

Secondly, the question as to whether the two

workers ever worked with the appellant and, if so,

for  how much period  and how much wages  were

payable to them by their employer are the material

questions, which were gone into by the competent

authority and appellate authority and decided in

favour of the two workers. A concurrent finding of

fact recorded on these issues by the two authorities

was binding on the High Court while deciding the

writ petitions and the  intra Court  appeals; Thirdly,

5

the writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petitions

inter alia on the ground that two workers in whose

favour the orders had been passed by the

authorities under the Act were necessary parties in

the writ petitions and since they were not impleaded

in the writ petitions, the writ petitions were liable to

be dismissed on this ground alone; Fourthly, even

in the intra Court appeals, the appellant though filed

an application for their impleadment but it was

done after a long lapse of time and, therefore, the

Division Bench rightly dismissed the application on

the  ground of  delay  and  laches.  Moreover, in the

meantime, both the workers also expired and their

legal representatives were not made parties either in

the  intra  Court appeals or in these appeals.   This

ground is, therefore, enough for dismissal of the

writ petitions,  intra  Court appeals and these

appeals.   

6

13) That apart, we find that the claim in question

relates to the year 1991 and pertains to the

payment of minimum wages payable to two workers,

who are now dead and not represented before this

Court.

14) Even then we examined the appellant’s case on

merits.  We, however, find that  the appellant  has

not been able to make out any case on merits.   

15) The only grievance of the appellant before the

High Court was that she was not afforded an

adequate opportunity in the proceedings and

secondly penalty imposed by the authorities on her

was excessive in quantum and hence either it

should be set aside or reduced to some extent.

16) We find no merit in the aforementioned

submissions. In our view, the appellant was

afforded a sufficient opportunity to defend and

which she also availed of. That apart, no material

was produced by the appellant at any stage of the

7

proceedings to show that any prejudice was caused

to her. We also find that having regard to the nature

of breaches committed by the appellant and which

were held proved, the authority was justified in

imposing the penalty on the appellant.  

17) It is not in dispute that the authority has the

power under the Act to impose the penalty, once the

breaches alleged against the employer are proved.

Neither the appellate authority, nor the writ Court

and nor the Division Bench in their respective

jurisdiction considered it proper to interfere on any

of these issues and, in our view, rightly.  

18) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find

no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and

are accordingly dismissed.  

19) The appellant is directed to calculate the entire

amount payable to the two workers (since dead) in

terms of the impugned orders and the same be paid

to the legal representatives of the two workers

8

within three months from the date of this order.  Let

the compliance report be submitted by the appellant

within three months to this Court and also to the

concerned competent authority.  

20) A copy of this order be sent to the concerned

competent authority and one copy of this order be

sent on the addresses of the two deceased workers

which are mentioned in the record of the case for

the information of their legal representatives so that

they are able to  implement this order against the

appellant for recovery of the awarded sum in their

favour.     

                      ………...................................J.      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

  …...……..................................J.              [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; January 07, 2019

9