High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the orders dt.2O-O1-2OO7 in case No.M.W.8 of 2006 on the file of the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, '1948 and D€puty Commissioner of Labour, Warangal by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the as Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. LA. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 15792 0F 20071 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dt.20-01-2007 in case No.M.WS of 2006 on the file of the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal pending disposal of the w.p. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE PI'LLA Ii:ARTHIK WRIT PEf,ITION No.12648 OF 2 oo7 ORDER: Aggrieved by ttre order dated 2O.OI.2OOi' in M W' No'8 of 2006 passed by the Authority under the Mirrimum Wages Act, lg49 and the Deputy Commissione r of Labour, Warangal, tJle petitioner has filed the present \\i nt Petition.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent filed a claim petition uirle M.W. No.8 of 2OO6 before the Authority under the Minirntrrn Wages Act, 1948 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labr)trr, Warangal, claiming an amount of Rs. 14,273/-, allegir-r11 that R.Tony, Sk.Muzeeb, and K.Rajesh were employees o1' tlle petitioner, and that although the petitioner was legalll' l>ound to pay minimum wages as frxed by the Governrnent, the said employees were paid less thal the prescrillr:'1 u'ages. In responsc, the petitioner filed a counter contending that the employees were paid the minimum wages lirr the period, which they claimed, in the month of May 20Oc jtself and that they hacl left emplo5rment after receiving the arrrounts due to 2 PK,J [email protected]_2OO7 f.i them. However, the Authority, by an order dated 2O.OL.2OO7, directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.14,2731-. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.

3. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondent.

4. [earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authority failed to appreciate that the power conferred under Section 2O(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is intended solely for enforcing the payment of amounts actually due to employees, and not for ensuring the employer's general compliance with the various wage rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Furthermore, the Authority overlooked the fact that the applicant did not produce any evidence to substantiate his claims. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugrred order dated. 2O.OL.2OO7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in I ,/,4t'l 3 PI(,J wp-1264A-2OO7 IXrislonal Ratlway Manoger, South Central Rallwag, Vliagautada and. another a. La.bour Enforcernent Olficer (Central) Prakashnagolr, RaJalunundry ornd. otherst,

5. Learned Government pleader for tlte respondent contended that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Deputy Comrnissioner of Labour, W,arangal, had rightly directed the petitioner to pay corn;rensation of Rs.14,273 / . Thus, no interference of this Court is necessitated.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissrons made bv learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. On perusal of the record, it is evident thal r.he petitioner had already paid the minimum wages to its emplol.ees for the period, which they claimed, in the month of Ma.i 2006 itself and thereafter, they had left emplo5rment after re,:eiving the dues. In La.bour Enforcement Officer (Centrcll) Praka.shnagar, Rajahmund,ry a nd, others (stated supro), it was held as follows: I 1997 (61ALD 'sO 4 \J/p-L2648 PK,J -2OO7 (

12. The learrred Counsel for the petitioners finelly submitted that, in the award of one-time compensation in addition to the any cas€, difference of wages is not justifred and it is without authority- Section 2O(3) of tlre Minimum Wages Act empowers the authority to direct payment, ia addition to the difference of wages, of such compensation as the authority may think lit not exceeding ten times the amount of such difference of wages. [t cannot, therefore, be said tttat tlrc authorigr had no jurisdiction to award compensation at alt. At the same time, tl.e discretion conferred by the said provision must be exercised soundly arld judiciously by the authority. ln R. K. Bhuwalka v. Authority Under M. W. Act, 1987(2) ALT 455, it was held that where t]rcre was no attempt by the employer to exptoit the labour by resorting ttre breach was lenia-I, the case did not calt for t}te levy of compensation under Section 2O(3) of the Act which is penal in character. In the instant case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the ambiguity in the statutory notifications which gave room for some doubt, I am satisfied that award of compensation in addition to the difference of wages is not justifred. Accordingly the writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent of setting aside t]:e direction to pay one-time compensati,on to t}le respondents. The direction for payment of dilTerence of wages claimed will, however, stand and it is affrrmed." 8, In tlte present case, the Authorify under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, ered in awarding compensation of Rs.14,273 / - without properly appreciating the fact that the petitioner had already paid the minimum wages due for the relevant period in May 2006 and that the employees had teft emploJrment thereafter upon receiving their dues. There was no cogent evidence produced by the respondent to substantiate the claim. In this context, the decision of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad in Labour Enforcement Officer (Centtu,l), Prakashnagar, Rajahmund.ry and others (stated supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein it was held that Y I 5 PK.J wp 12648_2007 although Section 2O(3) of the Minimum Wages Act empowers the Authority to award compensation, such porver is penal in nature and the said power must be exercisoil soundly and judiciously. Where there is no intent to explo.it the workers and thr: breach, if any, is technical or unintentional, the award ,:f compensation is not warranted. ,A.pplying this principb to the facts of the present case and in lhe absence of any mala-Jide conduct on the part of tJle petitioner and in view of rhe prior pa5rment of wages clearly in,licate that the award of compensation is unjustifred. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, dated 20.Ol.2OO7

9. In vier.v of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 2O.O7.2OO7 in M.W. No.8 of 2O06 passed b-g the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 arld the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warar gal. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. There sha-ll be no order as to costs. - / 1 That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' WitNESS THE HiJN:b[E irriCiiEr JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR_SINGH' ON this ""'iiirlo"-v, irii -sl""Lliioiior august Two Thousand ,\rrd rwentv Five I I I I //TRUE COPY// To, The lnspector Of Labour Officer, Warangal SD/.B. REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR ISECTION OFFICER $

2. One CC to SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI' Advocate tOPUCl 3. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR' H(;h Court ior the State of Telangana [OUTI 4. Two CD Copies BSK LS \qr- HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 .! ,+-: 1,.-t t' { (.) ?{ ffP Aff r) \: ORDER WP.No.12648 of 2007 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I I I legtc'A wffh5