VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Allahabad High Court 2023 › High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of U.P. Through the Secy. to the Govt. of U.P. Forest v. Narsingh and 2 Ors

Dismissed on merits/Rejected
Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decided
7 November 2023
Bench
Saral Srivastavaauthor
Case no.
WRIA 4824/2003

Judgment

Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4824 of 2003 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through The Secy. To The Govt. Of U.P. Forest Respondent :- Narsingh And 2 Ors.. Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajkumar Pandey Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶1List has been revised. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner is present. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not present.

¶2The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 28.03.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Faizabad in K.R.M.W. Case No.158 of 2001 whereby Prescribed Authority has held that illegality has been committed by the petitioner in not paying minimum wages to the respondent no.1, consequently, it imposed penalty upon the petitioner.

¶3It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner that Prescribed Authority has committed manifest error of law apparent on the face of record in holding that respondent no.1 was engaged as labour whereas it was the specific case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 was never engaged as labour. Consequently, it is submitted that entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are misconceived and not maintainable.

¶4Be that as it may, the Prescribed Authority after considering in detail the evidence on record recorded a finding that respondent no.1 was employed with the petitioner as daily wager and he was not being paid minimum wages.

¶5Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate from the record that finding of the Prescribed Authority in respect to engagement of respondent no.1 as daily wager is perverse or against the record.

¶6In such view of the fact, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Sattyarth High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.