ORDER :

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), in Claim Application No.054/2012-R.L.C. (R), lodged by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, Under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whereby and whereunder the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, partly allowed the Claim Application and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.11,40,411/- (Eleven lakh forty thousand four hundred eleven only) as the aforesaid amount includes the difference of wages of Rs. 3,03,549/- and OT Wages of Rs.37,054/- and compensation of Rs. 7,99,808/- in lieu of the difference of wages, OT Wages and compensation of Thirty six labourers/workers engaged in the establishment of the petitioner, employed at Hatia Station for sweeping and cleaning of coaches under Senior Division, Southern Railway, as the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages required to be paid as per rate prescribed by the Government Notifications.

3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner-A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd. is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 0/116 First Floor Shopping Mall D.L.P. City Phase-I Gurgaon Haryana. It is the case of the petitioner that an inspection was done under Section 19(1) of M.W. Act, 1948 where it was found that the wages which was being paid to workers was less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under notification No.SO. 1994 (E) dated 7.8.08 read with order No.1/10(6)/2010-LS-II dated 28.9.10 & order No.1/5 (6)/2011-LS-II dated 25.3.11 of Government of India for the period between 1.10.10 to 31.5.11. Inspection report was issued to the petitioner on 28.6.11 for payment of difference of wages/O.T. wages but petitioner-Company did not pay the difference between the wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the wages actually paid to the employees. Again on account of non-payment of difference of wages to the workers, the Labour Enforcement Officer filed a Claim Application being Claim Application No.54/2012 RLC (R) before the competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. After hearing the parties, the Regional Labour Commissioner allowed the Claim Application with a direction to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.11,40,411/- (Eleven lakh forty thousand four hundred eleven only) in lieu of difference of wages/O.T. wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application.

4. Mr. P.A.S.Pati, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned order strenuously urges that without considering the facts and the relevant documents, illegally and arbitrarily the learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi issued notice to the petitioner for non-payment of difference of wages, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.

5. Learned Counsel further argues that the petitioner had already verified the difference of wages paid to the workers and had made payment to 17 workers on the revised rate (wages) on the basis of actual number of days worked by the labours after making statutory deductions. Further 18 workers in claim list were not employed by them. Another 12 workers whose names are mentioned in claim list were also party in MW Claim No.17/2011-RLC (R) and the matter is subjudice and under consideration of Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.5451/2011 wherein stay order has been granted. The petitioner produced 10 workers and their statements were recorded. The said 10 workers stated that they have received the difference amount from respondent employer.

6. Per contra coun