Karnataka HC Sets Aside ₹14.6 Lakh Wage-Difference Order Against BBMP Contractor For Now After He Got No Effective Chance To Contest 61 Workers’ Claims

The petitioner was awarded a BBMP contract for cleaning Ward No. 194.

The Senior Labour Inspector filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, concerning 61 employees. The fifth respondent, the competent authority, directed the petitioner to pay ₹14,61,936 as wage differences.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that after he was impleaded and appeared, he was not given an effective opportunity to file objections or supporting documents before the matter was reserved for orders.

The Court found that the order sheet showed the petitioner appeared on 13 January 2023 and sought time to file objections, but the matter was reserved for orders on 5 October 2023 without an effective opportunity to do so.

Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 requires the competent authority to hear the applicant and the employer, afford them an opportunity of being heard, conduct any further inquiry considered necessary, and then pass an appropriate order.

An order made without an effective opportunity to be heard contravenes that statutory requirement and the principles of natural justice.

After the petitioner was impleaded, he appeared and sought time to submit objections and supporting documents. The order sheet recorded only adjournments, followed by the matter being reserved for orders; it showed no effective opportunity for him to present his case.

The authority therefore failed to meet the hearing requirement in Section 20(3), making the order procedurally defective and contrary to natural justice.

It remitted the matter to the fifth respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard.