High Court · 2025

T...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia piaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order or direction writ or writs more particularly one in the nature of certiorari, declaring the orders of the first respondent made in M.W. Case No. 5l2OO7 dl.21-8-2007 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 21 ,9781- difference of wages and an amount of Rs. 1,09,890/- 5 time compensation, a total sum of Rs. '1 ,31,868/- in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 are illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and quash the same in the interest of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following: ORDER r\ THE HON'BLE SRT WSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.1719 OF 2OOB ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 2O.OB.2OO7 rn M.W. Case No.5 of 2007 passed by respondent No.1 clirecting the petitioner to palz 2n amount of Rs.2 1,9781 tor'r,ar ds difference in r,r,ages and Rs. I,O9,B9O I - tolr,ards compens:rtton, totalling Rs.1,31,868/ , in favour oi respondent Nos.2 to J, the present Writ Petition is filed

2. Heard Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learnecl c,lunsel for the petitioner ald Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learnerl counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitroner s,rbmits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed M.W. Case No.5 ol 2007 before respondent No. 1 seeking payment of difierence itt ''r'age s for a period of six months i.e., from July 20O6 to Decernber 2006 Hou.ever, without givrng any opportunity to the petiliouer to defend its case and without examining or verify'ing the facts, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to pav difference in \rages for a period of six months, i.e., Rs.21,978,t along rvith I I I , PK,J \\:p 1719 2008 compensation equiva-lent to five times that amounts to Rs.1,09,890/-. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been regularlrv paid the salary in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and their salary ',vas deducted oniy whenever they were absent from duties. Therefore, there is no difference in payment of rvages due by the petittoner to respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4, by making false allegations stating that they are entitled to the difference in salary, filed the case and obtained an ex-parte order. It is a-lso submitted that upon receiving notice from respondent No.1, the petitioner engaged an Advocate to defend its case, however, the counsel failed to inform the petitioner about the progress of the case and in the mealtime, respondent No- 1 passed the impLgned order directing the petitioner to pay difference in wages of Rs.21,9781- along with compensation of Rs. l,O9,B9Ol Therefore, iearned counsel prays this Court to quash the impugned order dated 20 .OB.2OO7 .

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were never absent from duty. Hence, the allegation made by the petitioner is 3 PK,J \{, p l7l9 2008 baseless. Further, respondent No.l granted several opportunities but the petitioner failed to ava.il the same. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respor-rctent No.1 is lega1, va-iid and do not suffer from any infirniity. Hence, learned counsel prays this court to dismiss the v/rit petition.

5. This Court has taken note of submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. Admittedly, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed M. \V. Case No.5 of 2OO7 before respondent No.1 seeking ciflerence in minimum wages payable to them by the petitioncr along with compensation. Vide order dated 20.08 .2OO7 , r.he petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,3 i,ii68/ rvithin lifteen days from the date of the said order, which cbmprises ol Rs.21,978/- towards wage difference and Rr;. 1,09,g90/, towards compensation.

7. It is not in dispute that the wage differen<:r: payable to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for a period of six months amounts to Rs'21'978 / -. The only issue that arises for r:onsideration before this Court rs whether the imposition of compensation at five times the wage difference by responde nt No.l is 4 PK,.] wp 1719 2008 justified, particularly when the petitioner establishment falls under the category of scheduled emplo-yment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view, that there is no material on record to demonstrate any wilful or deliberate violation on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any findings indicating malafide intent, the award of compensation to such an extent is excessive and not commensurate with the nature of the alleged 1apse. Therefore, rhis Court finds it appropriate to modify the impugned order by reducing .the compensation from five times to one time the r.r,age difference, which would meet the ends of justice. I

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The order dated 2O.08.2OO7 passed by respondent No.1 in M.W. Case No.5 of 2OO7 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay the wage difference of Rs.21,978/- along with compensation equivalent to one time the sard amount, i.e., Rs.27,97a1-, to respondent Nos.2 to 4, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 PK,J V,'p l7 L9 2OO8 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1,, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. . / / That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above vtritness rn. Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this W"Anesday, the Sixth Day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' //TRUE COPY// sD/-lvl AWAHAR REDDY Ag6\ts ANT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Nizamabad. '' One CC to SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate IOI']UC] Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the Sitate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 BSR LS Two CD Copies (r' HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 ORDER WP.No.1719 of 2008 - -:.'-.:.- s t..lI-._)\ ,_:i \..\' ,:. \, i. (" 2]] sEP 20ffi a'. IC. f) (._ t+ PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS -f"b s tu