THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.1719 OF 2008

O R D E R:

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2007 in M.W. Case No.5 of 2007 passed by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.21,978/- towards difference in wages and Rs.1,09,890/- towards compensation, totalling Rs.1,31,868/-, in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed M.W. Case No.5 of 2007 before respondent No.1 seeking payment of difference in wages for a period of six months i.e., from July 2006 to December 2006. However, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend its case and without examining or verifying the facts, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to pay difference in wages for a period of six months, i.e., Rs.21,978/- along with compensation equivalent to five times that amounts to Rs.1,09,890/-. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been regularly paid the salary in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and their salary was deducted only whenever they were absent from duties. Therefore, there is no difference in payment of wages due by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4, by making false allegations stating that they are entitled to the difference in salary, filed the case and obtained an ex-parte order. It is also submitted that upon receiving notice from respondent No.1, the petitioner engaged an Advocate to defend its case, however, the counsel failed to inform the petitioner about the progress of the case and in the meantime, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay difference in wages of Rs.21,978/- along with compensation of Rs.1,09,890/-. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to quash the impugned order dated 20.08.2007.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were never absent from duty. Hence, the allegation made by the petitioner is baseless. Further, respondent No.1 granted several opportunities but the petitioner failed to avail the same. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is legal, valid and do not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, learned counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

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

6. Admittedly, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed M.W. Case No.5 of 2007 before respondent No.1 seeking difference in minimum wages payable to them by the petitioner along with compensation. Vide order dated 20.08.2007, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,31,868/- within fifteen days from the date of the said order, which comprises of Rs.21,978/- towards wage difference and Rs.1,09,890/-

towards compensation.

7. It is not in dispute that the wage difference payable to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for a period of six months amounts to Rs.21,978/-. The only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the imposition of compensation at five times the wage difference by respondent No.1 is justified, particularly when the petitioner establishment falls under the category of scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no material on record to demonstrate any wilful or deliberate violation on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any findings indicating malafide intent, the award of compensation to such an extent is excessive and not commensurate with the nature of the alleged lapse. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the impugned order by reducing the compensation from five times to one time the wage difference, which would meet the