The authority must provide valid reasons for imposing maximum penalties under the Payment of Wages Act, and failure to do so warrants a reduction in compensation.

ORDER :

The writ petitions have been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent, quash the order of the first respondent dated 27.04.2015 bearing Na.Ka.No.B2/2149/15 in not entertaining the petition to set aside the exparte order as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the first respondent to entertain the petition dated 09.03.2015 filed in P.W.Case Nos.20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 2014 respectively, to set aside the exparte order dated 18.02.2015 and decide the same on its merits and in accordance with law.

2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respective second respondent filed petition under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act , 1936 in P.W.Case Nos.20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 2014 respectively, before the first respondent. P.W.Case No.20 of 2014 was filed by P.Rajinikanth claiming a sum of Rs.1,06,670/- for non payment of salary, earn leave encashment, bonus and compensation for non payment of salary; P.W.Case No.21 of 2014 was filed by G.Kalidass claiming a sum of Rs.84,000/- for non payment of salary, bonus and compensation for non payment of salary; P.W.Case No.22 of 2014 was filed by I.Mujibur Rahman claiming a sum of Rs.1,06,667/- for non payment of salary, earn leave encashment, bonus and compensation for non payment of salary; P.W.Case No.23 of 2014 was filed by M.Christopher Solomon claiming a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- for non payment of salary and compensation for non payment of salary; and P.W.Case No.24 of 2014 was filed by S.Arul Manavalan claiming a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- for non payment of salary and compensation for non payment of salary.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the first respondent passed an exparte order dated 18.02.2015 allowing the claim of the respective second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed petition before the first respondent seeking to set aside the exparte order, however, the first respondent passed the impugned order returning the petition filed by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that it is true that the petitioner not paid salary, however, the compensation for non payment of salary awarded to the respective second respondent is ten times the unpaid salary, which is highly excessive. Hence, this Court may fix minimum compensation in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.587 of 2007 dated 02.01.2012 [ Mohandas Vs. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – 2/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour – 2 and two others]. The learned counsel further submitted that during the pendancy of the writ petitions, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,17,337/- before the first respondent vide cheque bearing no.727680 dated 15.06.2015.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respective second respondent submitted that the petitioner Management did not disburse salary to the respective second respondent and hence, they filed petition under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act , 1936 in P.W.Case Nos.20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 2014 respectively, before the first respondent and the first respondent exercised its discretionary power under Section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act and allowed the claim made by the respective second respondent.

7. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner Management did not disburse salary to the respective second respondent and hence, they filed petition under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act , 1936 in P.W.Case Nos.20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of 2014 respectively, before the first respondent and the first respondent allowed the claim made by the respective second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is tha