The Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, has the discretion to fix the amount of compensation payable along with the amount of excess wages, but such discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously.

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. These four civil revision applications have been filed by the employer against the order of the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1) of Sec.20 of me Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act 11 of 1948), hereinafter called the Act, made in four cases filed by the Labour Inspector (Central), Ranchi, under Sub-section (2) of Sec.20. The applications were filed on or about the 2nd of July, 1962 for a direction to the employer to pay the deficit amount which it was liable to pay under the notification issued under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. The four cases related to different labourers in respect of the wages paid to them in a part of the period in the month of February, 1962. In the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 490 of 1963, the deficit payment of wages was to the tune of Rs. 110.75. in the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 491 of 1963, the claim was Rs. 112.50, in the case out of which Civil Revision No. 492 of 1963 arises the claim for wages was Rs. 79.48 and in the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 493 of 1963 the claim was for Rs. 81.33. The total claim was Rs. 384.06. The Authority under the Act has directed, under Sub-section (3) of Sec.20, the petitioner to pay the said amount of deficit wages together with ten times the amount of such deficit by way of compensation under Clause (1) of Sub-section (3). The total amount of compensation directed to be paid in all the cases is Rs. 3,840.60 The petitioner company has obtained rules from this Court against the Labour Inspector to show cause why the orders of the Authority be not set aside. Cause has been shown on behalf of the Opposite Party by Mr. K. D. Chatterjee.

2. Learned Advocate-General who argued the petitioners case submitted 3 points in support of these applications:-

-

(i) That the notification which was issued fixing the minimum wages payable to the workmen concerned was too vague and ambiguous and could not lead to the conclusion that the wages paid to them were less than the minimum fixed by the notification,

(ii) That the employees concerned had made no claim or grievance that they had been paid less than the minimum wages and in absence of there bring a claim by, or on behalf of, them, the Labour Inspector had no locus standi to file an application under Sub-section (2) of Sec.20 of the Act.

(iii) That on the facts and in the circum-stances of these cases, the Authority has not applied its mind nor has it judicially exercised its discretion in awarding the maximum of amount of compensation i.e., ten times the amount of wages said to have been paid less.

3. Mr. K. D. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the Labour Inspector submitted that none of the points urged on behalf of the petitioner is correct. But, along with that he made a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these applications on the ground that the employees concerned have not been made parties to these applications and any adverse order made by this Court against them will be in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the order will be made without giving them an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

4. During the hearing of these applications, a question also arose as to whether the Authority under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or whether the proper remedy of the employer was to move this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not think it necessary to decide this point. The applications have been directed to be placed for hearing before the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court when they came up for hearing before him. Under the Rules of this Court, such applications filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution can be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to decide this point as to whether the civil revisions are competent or whether we can