Delhi High Court
Shine Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs Bajrangi Prasad on 25 April, 2018
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 25.04.2018
+ W.P.(C) 329/2017
SHINE TRAVELS & CARGO PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Pandey and Mr. Vikas
Kumar, Advs.
versus
BAJRANGI PRASAD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ataur Rahman and Mr.
Sarefaraz Khan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.10.2015 passed
by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948/Deputy
Labour Commissioner, South West District, New Delhi by
which the claim petition of the respondent workman against the
petitioner for non-payment of minimum wages for the period
01.04.2014 to 30.09.2014 was allowed in exercise of its power
conferred by Clause (i) of sub-section 3 of Section 20 of
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'M.W. Act') and the
petitioner management was directed to pay the difference of the
minimum wages along with the compensation to the extent of
five times of the difference of the amount of the minimum
wages and actual wages paid.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
management had always paid the minimum wages to the
respondent and the Authority could not have imposed any
penalty upon them. He further submits that the respondent was
absenting from duty. He also submits that Deputy Labour
Commissioner has made a reference to the Labour Court at
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as to whether the respondent has
been absenting from duty or his services has been terminated
illegally or unjustifiably by the management and if so, what
relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary. He also
submits that the reference petition has been pending before the
Industrial Adjudicator. He submits that the petitioner was under
the impression that the issue of minimum wages would also be
decided by the Labour Court and they were not aware that
proceedings were pending before the Authority under M.W.
Act. He submits that the petitioner became aware of the
impugned order when he received summons from the Evening
Court No.3, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent
that the petitioner did not appear before the Authority under
M.W. Act and the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 was passed
ex parte against the petitioner. He submits that minimum wages
during the relevant period were Rs.10,374/- per month for
skilled workers as notified by the Government of NCT Delhi
whereas the petitioner had paid the wages to the respondent @
Rs.7826/- per month and thus the respondent was paid less
salary @ Rs.2,548/- every month during the relevant period.
4. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the respondent was
being paid salary @ Rs.7,826/- per month as against the
Minimum Wages @ Rs.10,374/- during the relevant period.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.407/2013, M/s.
Tops Security Ltd. Vs. Tops Detective and Security Services
Ltd. Karamchari Union (Regd.) decided on 27.01.2014 has set
aside the order of the authority under MW Act directing the
appellant to pay compensation/penalty equal to five times of the
excess wages due and substituted with a direction to pay the
excess wages along with three times the compensation.
6. Whenever any claim is lodged with the authority under MW
Act under Section 20 (2), the authority under Section 20 (3) (i)
of the MW Act after hearing both the parties is empowered
upon finding the employer to have paid less than the minimum
rates of wages, to direct the employer to pay the employee the
amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceeds
the amount actual paid, together with the payment of such
compensation as the authority may think fit but not exceeding
ten times of such excess amount.
7. The MW Act or the Rules framed thereunder admittedly do not
lay down any guideline or criteria for determining the quantum
of such compensation.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking
into the facts and circumstances of the case that the period of
the default is only 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2014, it would be
appropriate if the direction of the authority to pay the arrears of
difference in wages along with compensation equal to five times
the excess wages due is substituted with a direction to pay the
difference of wages for five months Rs.15,288/- along with
three times of the excess amount of wages as compensation.
9. Since, the petitioner has deposited Rs.91,728/- with the Registry
of the Court in terms of the order dated 13.01.2017, it is
directed that the amount payable to the respondent in terms of
the order of this Court be released to the respondent by the
Registry with accrued interest thereon and remaining amount
with accrued interest be refunded to the petitioner.
10. The petition along with pending application being CM
No.1549/2017 is disposed of accordingly.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2018
"sandeep"
