APHC010759162012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No:33471 OF 2012 Between: State Bank of India Rep. by its Branch Manager, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …Petitioner AND The Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 And the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500 007 And three others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. V.Uma Devi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar The Court made the following order: 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 01.10.2012, passed by the 1st respondent-Authority -2- W.P. No.33471 of 2012 under the Minimum Wages Act in application No.46/14/2012-E1, whereby the 3rd respondent therein/ petitioner herein was directed to deposit the principal amount of the claim i.e.,Rs.64,480/-. The 1st respondent herein further directed the respondents 1 and 2 therein/ respondents 3 and 4 herein to deposit compensation equal to one time of the principal amount. 2. The learned standing counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent herein was engaged by a contractor for a period of one year from 03.04.2009 to 31.03.2010. The contractor was required to ensure compliance by sub-contractor/ consultant/ outsourcing agency. An agreement with Financial Software and Systems Private Limited, Chennai, was entered by the petitioner and the said company was deploying the required number of employees who were on the rolls of the company to provide the requisite support in ensuring compliance of the relevant labour laws and other allied laws. The 2nd respondent claimed that he was paid wages, which was below the minimum wages and as -3- W.P. No.33471 of 2012 such, he approached the 1st respondent by submitting a claim petition. 3. The learned standing counsel for the petitioner further submits that a detailed counter was submitted by the petitioner bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It was also submitted that the petitioner paying the amounts to the contractor as per the contract and it was the responsibility of the contractor to ensure payment of wages to their employees. The 1st respondent unmindful of the detailed counter has allowed the claim petition, without assigning any reasons, holding that the petitioner is also responsible for payment of the wages to a third party who is no way connected with the petitioner. 4. As seen from the order, dated 01.10.2012, it is evident that the 1st respondent has not cited any valid reasons for holding the petitioner was responsible for payment of wages to the third party entity. It is also evident that the -4- W.P. No.33471 of 2012 award is silent on the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 5. Considering the same, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 01.10.2012, passed by the 1st respondent herein to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.64,480/-. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV