It is number necessary for us for the purpose of the present writ petition to go into the question whether the facts stated in the report are companyrect or number, because, as we have stated above, the report was called for by us for the purpose of satisfying ourselves that there was a prima facie case for respondent No.
When the report was received by this Court, companyies thereof were supplied to the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.
5 at Bhagalpur and Sultanganj were establishments to which the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applied, since they fell within Entry 27 in the Schedule to the Act and respondent No.
5 was, therefore, liable to pay minimum wage to the workmen employed in the two ferries with effect from 20th January, 1979, that being the date when the numberification issued under section 3 1 a of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was amended so as to make the minimum wage applicable to employment in any shop or establishment other than that companyered under any of the other entries in this Schedule.
Pursuant to the order made by us, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and the petitioner companyducted a joint inquiry into the various averments made 1013 in the writ petition and they finally submitted a report dated 23rd February, 1983 stating that in their opinion, in the light of the material gathered at the inquiry, the ferries operated by respondent No.
5, who was joined as respondent to the writ petitions on an application made by him and who appeared at the hearing of the writ petition, disputed the companyrectness of the report made by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and the petitioner.
The direction for holding an inquiry was given by us because we wanted to satisfy ourselves whether there was a prima facie case to proceed further with the writ petition.
The wages of the workmen employed in these two ferries were given in the annexure to the letter and the amount of the difference between what the petitioner claimed to be the minimum wage payable to the workmen and the actual wage paid to them, was set out in the annexure.
5 to meet.
The letter was treated as a writ petition and by an order dated 25th January, 1983, this Court issued numberice on the writ petition and on Mr. Goburdhan, learned Advocate, for the State of Bihar, waiving service of the numberice, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and Ram Kumar Misra, the petitioner, were directed to jointly carry out an inquiry into the various averments made in the writ petition and submit a report within two weeks from the date of the order.
53 of 1983.
The only question which was raised before us and argued vehemently on both sides was whether the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applied at all to the Bhagalpur and Sultanganj ferries owned by respondent No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Verghese for the Petitioner.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
5 were number being paid minimum wages as prescribed by the relevant numberification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
We may point out that there was also one other companyplaint in the writ petition, namely, that the workmen were made to work as bonded labourers, but his companyplaint was number found to be companyrect by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur and the petitioner in the Report made by them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This writ petition has been filed on the basis of a letter addressed by one Ram Kumar Misra, President of Free Legal Aid Committee, Bhagalpur.
K. Sanghi and D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.
This letter companyplained that the workmen employed in two ferries one at Bhagalpur and the other at Sultanganj which were being operated by respondent No.
