The court emphasized the requirement for the authority to exercise judicial discretion and provide reasons for its decisions.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the ex-parte order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in a petition bearing No.MW/SD/564/2013/7677 filed by the respondent-workman whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.22,812/- towards arrear of minimum wages alongwith compensation to the tune of 10 times amounting to Rs.2,28,120/-.

2. The respondent had filed a claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act before the designated authority under the Minimum Wages Act alleging that he was working with the petitioner on the post of Mechanic since 01.04.2004 at last drawn wages of Rs.6000/- per month and was paid less than the minimum wages of Rs.9,802/- for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.11.2013 and claimed Rs.41,822/- towards arrear. The respondent (petitioner herein) was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner (respondent herein) filed affidavit alongwith salary sheets for the month of November, 2012 and December, 2013. Thereupon the designated authority passed the impugned order which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent. As per the report, respondent was served personally by the petitioner during the execution proceedings. Despite this, he failed to appear.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Trial court record has been requisitioned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order primarily on two grounds:

(i) The respondent was being paid as per the Minimum Wages Act even for the period in question. Even if the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte in those proceedings, it was incumbent upon the authority concerned to have appreciated and examine the record. The respondent himself had placed on record the salary slips for the month of November, 2012 and December, 2013 which reflected that he was paid salary in accordance with minimum wages. However, without considering the documents, the impugned order was passed.

(ii) The authority concerned failed to pass a speaking and reasoned order while granting maximum compensation alongwith arrears of minimum wages. Reference was made to the order passed by the same authority in the matter of Sh.Laxman Singh S/o Late Kunwer Singh vs. M/s Adarsh Yamaha in Claim No. MW/SD/171/2013/16471 whereby the same competent authority has awarded one time of the arrear of minimum wages towards compensation. The counsel further urged that absolutely no reason was given by the competent authority for awarding the maximum compensation to the workman in this case. Reliance was placed on Prerna Sahygo vs. Authority under Minimum Wages and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 247 and Kerala Automobiles Ltd. (M/s.) vs. Mrs. Naveetha P., 2008 LLR 677.

6. The first question for consideration is whether the respondent-workman was paid less than the minimum rates of wages. As per the claim filed by the respondent, he was working with the petitioner-management as Mechanic since 01.04.2004 at last drawn wages of Rs.6000/- per month. According to him, he was paid wages less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for his category. He filed the details of the claim as below:

S.No.	Period	Minimum Wages (In Rs.)	Wages received	Arrear
1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1.	01/01/2013 To 30/11/2013	Rs.9802/- per month	Rs.6000/- per month	Rs.3802x11=41,822/-
				Total amounting to Rs. 41,822/-

7. Competent authority opined that although the claim was laid for the period 01.01.2013 to 30.11.2013 but the claimant was entitled to the relief only for last six months from the date of filing his claim. As such, the claim of the workman was to be considered for the period 01.06.2013 to 30.11.2013. According to the claimant, the minimum wages for the relevant period