Telangana High Court
WP/15748/1999 of R.Rama Devi Vs The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, on 30 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15748 of 1999 Between: R.Rama Devi Sri Durga Malleswara Siddartha Mahila Kalasala,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 15748 of 1999
Between:
R.Rama Devi Sri Durga Malleswara Siddartha Mahila Kalasala, Vijayawada.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, (The DeputyCommissioner of Labour)
Eluru, West Godavari District
2 The Assistant Labour Officer, Circle-7, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-520 011, Krishna Dist.
3 Y.Surya Prasad, The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : None.
Counsel for the Respondents: None.
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare theaction of respondent No.1 in posting M.W.No.35 of 1998 at Eluru,instead of at Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14of the Constitution of India.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties. I haveperused the record.
The petitioner, who is the Principal of Sri Durga MalleswaraSiddartha Mahila Kalasala, Vijayawada, averred in her affidavit thatrespondent No.1, who entertained the application filed by respondentNo.2 to initiate proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (forshort ‘the Act’) against the Institution, gave notice to the petitioner forhearing at Vijayawada. It is further stated that hearing of the case wasadjourned on different dates, namely 04.12.1998, 05.01.1999,05.02.1999 and 02.03.1999 and that oral evidence was recorded onthe last mentioned date. It is further averred that respondent No.1while adjourning all the cases listed on 20.07.1999 to 17.08.1999 to beheard at Vijayawada, posted M.W.No.35 of 1998 alone to 31.07.1999to be heard at Eluru. The petitioner, therefore, alleged invidiousdiscrimination in fixing the place of hearing.
In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is, inter alia,mentioned that at the instance of the petitioner, the case wasadjourned from 23.06.1998 to 17.07.1998, 12.08.1998 and 19.08.1998for filing counter-affidavits and respondent No.2 was examined in chiefon 05.02.1999 and at the instance of the petitioner, the case adjournedfor his cross-examination to 02.03.1999. As the said date happened tobe a public holiday, the case was adjourned to 09.03.1999; that at therequest of the petitioner, the case was further adjourned to 16.03.1999and that finally, respondent No.2 was cross-examined on behalf of thepetitioner’s counsel on 20.04.1999. It is further stated that at theinstance of the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 25.05.1999 toproduce evidence on her side. On 15.06.1999, the case wasadjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, as a last chance, to 20.07.1999, with the observation that if evidence is notadduced, it will be treated as the petitioner not having evidence, andthat on 20.07.1999, the petitioner’s counsel filed an application foradjournment and the case was finally adjourned to 31.07.1999 atEluru, which is the head quarter, and there was no sitting Camp Courtat Vijayawada during July 1999 and August 1999 till 24.08.1999. It isstated that due to non-cooperation of the petitioner and her counsel,the case, which was expected to be disposed of within a few months,could not be disposed of; that respondent No.1 had jurisdiction overWest Godavari, East Godavari and Krishna Districts; that it normallyholds sittings at Eluru and to suit the convenience of the parties, it alsoconducts Camp Courts in Viajayawada, Rajahmundry and Kakinada,once in a month and that in view of the delay caused in this particularcase, the case was given short adjournments and posted at Eluru.
The above-mentioned facts clearly reveal that the caseunderwent several adjournments mostly at the instance of thepetitioner. Admittedly, the seat of respondent No.1 is at Eluru and heconducts Camp Courts at different places within his jurisdiction. In myconsidered view, on the facts narrated in the counter-affidavit, there isno illegality or arbitrariness in respondent No.1 fixing hearing at Eluru. The authority shall be conceded to have power to decide on the placesof its sittings. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that theinstitution she represents does not have financial capacity to attend thehearing at Eluru, which is not too far away from Vijayawada. I do not,therefore, see any reason for this Court’s interference with thediscretion exercised by respondent No.1-authority. It is required to beobserved that the petitioner got proceedings initiated under the Act,which is a beneficial legislation, stalled for the last nine years on the flimsy ground of not fixing the hearing at the option of the petitioner.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition, which is afrivolous and vexatious piece of litigation, deserves to be and isaccordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated28.07.1999, is vacated and WPMP.No.19417 of 1999 is dismissed.
Dated:30.12.2008GJ
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J