HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 44356 of 2012 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raghav Nayar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners before this Court are workmen of M/S Novateur And Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. and they were paid minimum wages as per the notification issued from time to time. 3. In the year 2006, a notification dated 24.2.2006 was issued, whereby minimum wages were enhanced subject to certain conditions. 4. The respondent employer approached the Labour Commissioner that whether aforesaid notification was applicable or not to them. Labour Commissioner vide an order dated 15.5.2008 declared that notification dated 15.5.2000 would not be applicable on the petitioner. Admittedly, they were not called for hearing. 5. Workmen remained silent for almost 4 years and thereafter filed an application that notification dated 15.5.2000 be made applicable to them. 6. It is not under dispute that meanwhile another notification dated 24.2.2006 came into force, whereby minimum wages were increased and workmen were paid accordingly. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Pushpendra Kumar Sharma, Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, Y.K. Sinha, Yogesh Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raghav Nayar, Yashwant Varma, Yashwant Verma Workmen Of M/S Novateur And Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. And Ors .....Petitioner(s) Labour Commissioner And Others .....Respondent(s) 7. It is the case of the workmen that when they came to know about the order passed in the year 2008, an application was filed by the workmen to implement the notification dated 15.5.2000 which got rejected by the Labour Commissioner vide an order dated 18.04.2012 that it was not operational since a subsequent notification has come into force. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.04.2012 by way of present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that being workmen they were proper party and their stand ought to have been taken before any decision was taken by the Labour Commissioner on the application filed by the employer that notification dated 15.5.2000 was not applicable, but no steps were taken and as soon as they came to know that they have been denied benefit of the aforesaid notification, not only they approached the Labour Commissioner for its implementation, but when it was not granted they have filed this writ petition. 10. 10. It is further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that finding returned in the impugned order is not correct. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that impugned order has assigned reasons which are justified. The petitioners have approached the authorities after many years and their claim was rightly rejected since notification issued in the year 2000 was not available since meanwhile, subsequently another notification dated 24.2.2006 came into force and benefit of the same has already been granted to workman. 12. After considering the aforesaid submissions and records, Court finds that no provision is brought to the notice of this Court that when an application was filed by the respondent employer was considered by the Labour Commissioner that whether the notification dated 15.5.2000 was applicable or not, the petitioners mandatorily were required to be heard. Even workmen have not taken any steps for implementation of the aforesaid notification at relevant time and for first time they approached the authority in the year 2012 i.e. after 12 years of the issuance of aforesaid notification and after 4 years of passing the impugned order. WRIC No. 44356 of 2012 2 13. In the above background Court takes note that notification dated 15.5.2000 cannot be interfered with since subsequent notification dated 24.2.2006 came into existence and benefit of it has already been granted. 14. Otherwise also, on basis of material available, Court does not find that finding returned in the impugned order is contrary to facts or law. 15. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. September 15, 2026 SB WRIC No. 44356 of 2012 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad