AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.
ORDER
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 29.9.2011, passed by the Labour Officer and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act vide Annexure-A. By the impugned order at Annexure-A, the Labour Officer and the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act has allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 77,552/- towards difference of wages and a sum of Rs. 77,552/- towards compensation.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are:
The respondent joined service as a Forest Watcher on daily wage basis on 15.2.1987. He was not paid proper wages for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2006. Therefore, the respondent filed an application u/s. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act claiming difference of wages. The Labour Officer and the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, by order dated 29.9.2011, has allowed the petition and has directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 77,552/- towards difference of wages and a sum of Rs. 77,552/- towards compensation. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that there was delay in filing the application and therefore, the concerned Authority was not justified in entertaining the application. He also submitted that the amount awarded towards compensation is highly exorbitant and unreasonable. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that proper wages were not paid for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2006 and therefore, the respondent filed an application claiming difference of wages and the Authority has passed orders directing the petitioners to pay the difference of wages and compensation and therefore, it does not call for interference.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
It is relevant to note, the respondent has joined service as Forest Watcher on daily wage basis on 15.2.1987. Proper wages have not been paid for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2006. Therefore, the respondent has filed an application claiming difference of wages. It appears, there was delay in filing the application. The Authority considering that the petitioners have contributed for the delay has condoned the delay. It does not call for interference. The Authority taking into consideration that proper wages were not paid for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2006 in terms of the minimum wages fixed has directed the petitioners to pay the difference of wages of Rs. 77,552/- for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2006. That also does not call for interference. However, the Authority has directed the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs. 77,552/-. Keeping in view, there was delay in filing the application and in the circumstances of the case, I consider it proper to award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation instead of Rs. 77,552/-.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 29.9.2011, passed by the Labour Officer and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is hereby modified directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 77,552/- towards difference of wages and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation.