THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.12648 OF 2007

O R D E R:

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2007 in M.W. No.8 of 2006 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent filed a claim petition vide M.W. No.8 of

2006 before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, claiming an amount of Rs.14,273/-, alleging that R.Tony, Sk.Muzeeb, and K.Rajesh were employees of the petitioner, and that although the petitioner was legally bound to pay minimum wages as fixed by the Government, the said employees were paid less than the prescribed wages. In response, the petitioner filed a counter contending that the employees were paid the minimum wages for the period, which they claimed, in the month of May 2006 itself and that they had left employment after receiving the amounts due to them. However, the Authority, by an order dated 20.01.2007, directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.14,273/-. 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-II appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authority failed to appreciate that the power conferred under Section 20(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 impugned order dated 20.01.2007. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada and another v. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry and others, 1997 (6) ALD 750

5. Learned Government Pleader for the respondent contended that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, had rightly directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.14,273/-. Thus, no interference of this Court is necessitated.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner had already paid the minimum wages to its employees for the period, which they claimed, in the month of May 2006 itself and thereafter, they had left employment after receiving the dues. In Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry and others (stated supra), it was held as follows:

“…

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners finally submitted that, in any case, the award of one-time compensation in addition to the difference of wages is not justified and it is without authority. Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act empowers the authority to direct payment, in addition to the difference of wages, of such compensation as the authority may think fit not exceeding ten times the amount of such difference of wages. It cannot, therefore, be said that the authority had no jurisdiction to award compensation at all. At the same time, the discretion conferred by the said provision must be exercised soundly and judiciously by the authority. In R. K. Bhuwalka v. Authority Under M. W. Act, 1987(2) ALT 455, it was held that where there was no attempt by the employer to exploit the labour by resorting the breach was lenial, the case did not call for the levy of compensation under Section 20(3) of the Act which is penal in character. In the instant c