State Of Rajasthan vs Bhopa Ram (2023/Rjjd/017246)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5259 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017246]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1038/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Duda Ram S/o Joga Ram, Akadli, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Akadli, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 895/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Bhopa Ram S/o Lala Ram, Village Kotukhan, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat Patori, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 899/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Panchpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Bhawani Singh S/o Jai Singh, Village Durgapura, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Bagawas Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

[2023/RJJD/017246] (2 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 943/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Panchpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Shaitan Singh S/o Rana Ram, Village Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Parlu, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 967/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Ganpat Das S/o Girdhari, Village Newri, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat Newri, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 970/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Fusa Ram S/o Jala Ram, Village Khattu, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat Khattu, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/017246] (3 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 971/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rawatpuri S/o Gumanpuri, Village Thob, Tehsil Panchpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Moolki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 984/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Kana Ram S/o Panna Ram, Dudwa, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Dudwa, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 987/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Bhera Ram S/o Virdha Ram, R/o Village Sughroniya Ki Dhani, Tehsil Pachpadara, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Chilandi, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/017246] (4 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 988/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer

----Appellants Versus

1. Ali Mohammad S/o Hamle Khan, Village Kanana, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer

2. Gram Panchayat, Navoda Bera, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 991/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Dheena Ram S/o Bhakar Ram, Village Parlu, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Dholi Kalla, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1030/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Officer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Magpuri S/o Phoolpuri, Village - Doli Kalan, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Doli Kalan, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/017246] (5 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1033/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Sang Singh S/o Bagat Singh, Village Badjawa Jagir,tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Baunava, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1034/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District - Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District - Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rahim Khan S/o Bachhu Khan, Village- Khanoda, Tehsil -

Pachpadra, District - Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Rewada, Jetmal, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1035/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District - Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District - Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Pata Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Village - Hapanada, Tehsil -

Pachpadra, District - Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Dhundli, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/017246] (6 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1036/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Panchpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Shankar Singh S/o Bhairav Singh, Village Paraliya Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Mool ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1043/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Nathu Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Khanoda, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat Khanoda, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1049/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Ghewar Ram S/o Chhoga Ram, Village Rewara Maghiya, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat Rewada Jetmal, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents

[2023/RJJD/017246] (7 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1082/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Abdul Gani S/o Khamme Khan, Village Navoda Bet.

2. Gram Panchayat Dhundli, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1083/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Amre Khan S/o Jagmal Khan, Village Navoda Bera,tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat Navoda Bera, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1085/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Hara Ram S/o Basta Ram, Village Chanjrai, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Mool ki Dhani, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1086/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

[2023/RJJD/017246] (8 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Gafoor Khan S/o Hamle Khan, Village Navoda Bera, Tehsil Panchpadra, District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Navoda Bera, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 155/2023

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Choga Ram S/o Rawta Ram, R/o Village Silgan, Tehsil Gudamalani District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Bheemthal, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 176/2023

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Dungra Ram S/o Kharta Ram, R/o Alamsariya, Tehsil Gudamalani District Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Udasar, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 446/2023

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District - Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District - Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

[2023/RJJD/017246] (9 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

1. Kesa Ram S/o Jalla Ram, Village- Bhakarsar, Tehsil -

Pachpadra, District - Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Patodi, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District - Barmer.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 448/2023

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Balotra, District - Barmer.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Pachpadra Balotra, District - Barmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Kadar Khan S/o Ghume Khan, Village- Navoda Bera, Tehsil - Pachpadra, District - Barmer.

2. Gram Panchayat, Navodabera, Panchayat Samiti Balotra, District - Barmer.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Rishi Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bagmalani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

25/05/2023

1. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 03.12.2021

passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed

by the appellant-State against the orders dated

25.02.2014/27.05.2016 passed by the Authority under the

Minimum Wages Act ('the Authority'), have been dismissed.

2. The respondents - employees approached the Authority

alleging payment less than the minimum wages by the Assistant

Engineer, PHED, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer, Rajasthan for

[2023/RJJD/017246] (10 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

the services rendered by them while working under the

employment and direction of various Panchayat Samitis in relation

to the tube-wells, repairing of the pipelines and maintaining water

supply at the villages.

3. Allegations were made that they were being paid Rs.500/-

per month instead of Rs.73/- per day as the minimum wages and,

therefore, they were entitled to the payment of difference in the

amount paid and minimum wages along with compensation ten

times the amount of difference.

4. The plea was contested by the appellant - State on various

grounds. The Authority, after appreciating the evidence led by the

parties, came to the conclusion that the payment, less than the

minimum wages, was not justified and consequently awarded the

difference between the amount paid and the minimum wages

along with compensation equal to the amount of difference.

5. The State filed writ petitions challenging the orders dated

25.02.2014/27.05.2016 passed by the Authority. It was inter-alia

claimed that the responsibility, if any, of making payment was that

of various Gram Panchayat/s and not of the State and that the

order passed by the Authority ordering for payment of

compensation in the circumstances of the case was not justified.

6. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, came to the

conclusion that the issue raised by the State in the writ petition

was squarely covered by decision rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Superintending Engineer, PHED, Sikar & Ors.

Vs. Prahlad Rai & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.11355/2013) decided on

21.09.2016 and judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2017)

[2023/RJJD/017246] (11 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

decided on 13.07.2017 as upheld by the Division Bench in D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No.247/2013 - State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Vs. Nemi Chand & Ors. decided on 24.08.2017 and came to the

conclusion that as the issue raised was squarely covered by the

said judgments, there was no merit in the writ petitions and after

reproducing the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

dismissed the writ petitions.

7. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the

rejection of the writ petitions filed by the State, by learned Single

Judge in the circumstances of the case is not justified, inasmuch

as, the plea raised by the appellants-petitioners, regarding in-

applicability of the judgment in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra)

was not considered.

8. Further submissions have been made that during pendency

of the writ petitions, the amount of difference, as ordered by the

authority, has already been paid to the respondents-workmen.

However, the issue pertaining to award of compensation is still

pending. It was submitted that the award of compensation in the

present case was not justified and that the authority has not

recorded any reasons for awarding the compensation and,

therefore, the award of compensation deserves to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents-employees made

submissions that the issue raised in the present appeals is

squarely covered by the order in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra),

as the only plea raised by the State was regarding its liability to

make the payment of minimum wages, as the State tried to shift

the liability on various Gram Panchayats, which aspect was

exhaustively dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to

[2023/RJJD/017246] (12 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

another Scheme i.e. the Gramin Janta Jal Yojana, which was

squarely applicable to the present case.

10. Further submissions have been made that under the

provisions of Section 20(3)(i) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('the

Act'), the Authority can award compensation upto ten times of the

amount of difference. However, only compensation equal to the

amount of difference has been awarded, which does not call for

any interference. As such the appeals deserve dismissal.

11. We have considered the submissions made.

12. Though the appeals are barred by limitation, in view of the

facts that in one case i.e. SAW No.899/2022, notices have been

served and learned counsel has put in appearance and the matter

has been heard on merits, all the appeals, as they arise from the

same impugned judgment, are being decided together, the

applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed.

The delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

13. The appellants have raised two issues i.e. the purported non-

applicability of judgment in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra) to the

facts of the present cases and award of compensation by the

Authority.

14. It would be appropriate to quote the order passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra), which

reads as under:-

"The challenge in this group of appeals is against a common order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State sought to challenge an order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court upholding the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act by which the Public

[2023/RJJD/017246] (13 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

Health and Engineering Department of the State and the concerned Gram Panchayat has been made jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due to the concerned employees (Pump Operators) as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

The Scheme-Gramin Janta Jal Yojna under which the respondents were appointed was floated by the State Government and the implementation thereof was entrusted to the concerned Gram Panchayat. Under the Scheme, according to the appellant, contribution of funds to be provided by the State for the employees is only Rs.500/- per month and the rest of the expenditure is to be borne by the Gram Panchayat(s). It is on the aforesaid basis that the order granting minimum wage holding the Department jointly and severally liable to pay the minimum wages has been challenged.

The Scheme in question was introduced and implemented for ensuring safe drinking water for the residents of the concerned villages. The Scheme itself was floated by the Government and the funds for implementation of the Scheme are to be paid by the State Government. If that be so, it is difficult to understand as to why the State alongwith Gram Panchayat cannot be held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

It at all such a situation, namely, the question of apportionment of funds arise, the same can also be dealt with by suitable adjustments made in the amounts allocated/to be allocated by the State to the Panchayats. However, that would not be a sufficient basis to find fault with the order of the primary authority or in the order of learned Single Judge which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. We, therefore, find no merit in any of these appeals. The appeals filed by the State are consequently dismissed."

15. Perusal of the above would reveal that the issue, which was

raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court, pertained to the same PHED

Department and its liability to pay the minimum wages in relation

to the schemes, which were floated by the State and implemented

by the Gram Panchayats and part of the fixed payment was being

made by the Gram Panchayat/s to the employees and the

challenge was laid to the liability imposed on the State for

[2023/RJJD/017246] (14 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

payment of the difference between the amount paid and the

minimum wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the

conclusion that the question of apportionment of funds can be

dealt with between the State and the Panchayat Samiti(s) and so

far as, the order of payment passed by the authority against the

State was concerned, the same did not call for any interference

and consequently upheld the orders passed by the learned Single

Judge and the Division Bench of this Court.

16. In the present cases also, irrespective of the fact that the

engagement in question is not in Gramin Janta Jal Yojana and the

same is under a different scheme, the plea raised is similar i.e.

whether the PHED is responsible for making payment based on

the order passed by the Authority and that the liability is solely

that of the Gram Panchayats and as such, the issue has rightly

been held by the learned Single Judge to be covered by judgment

in the case of Prahlad Rai(supra).

17. Besides the above, insofar as the payment of difference

between the minimum wages and the amount paid is concerned,

the same has already been paid by the appellant-State to the

respondents and as such even otherwise, the plea raised in this

regard is academic only.

18. Coming to the issue of award of compensation by the

Authority equal to the amount of difference between the minimum

wages and the amount paid to the employees, the provisions of

Section 20(3)(i) of the Act, inter-alia, reads as under:-

"(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or given them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may without prejudice to

[2023/RJJD/017246] (15 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct-

(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess."

19. A bare perusal of the above provision reveals that the

Authority under the Act has the jurisdiction to direct, payment of

compensation, as it think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount

of excess i.e. the difference between the minimum wages and the

actual payment made.

20. The fact that the authority has been conferred with the

jurisdiction to award compensation to the extent of ten times the

amount of excess, the jurisdiction has to be exercised by the

authority judiciously and the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

21. Looking to the nature of the cases, it is not in dispute that

the minimum wages at the relevant time was Rs.73/- per day.

However, the employees, were being paid Rs.500/- per month and

the difference for the period from January, 2007 to October, 2007,

for which the claim was made before the Authority, came to about

Rs.18,400/- per employee, the claim was made in the year 2007

itself and the matter remained pending before the authority for

over 9 years, when the order was passed for making payment of

difference between the minimum wages and actual amount paid

and, therefore, apparently the award of compensation to the

extent of one time/equal to the amount of excess in under no

circumstance can be said to be arbitrary on part of the Authority.

[2023/RJJD/017246] (16 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prerna Sahygo Vs. Authority

under Minimum Wages & Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 247, in a case where

the authority had directed payment of eight times wages to the

workmen as compensation, who were not paid the minimum

wages came to the following conclusion:-

"We do not agree that no interference with the award of the authority was called for. It was called for in the matter of the compensation awarded. Rather than remitting the matter to the High Court, we have heard learned counsel. We are satisfied that the award of compensation is exorbitant. We think, in the circumstances, that the amount of the compensation should be equivalent to the amount of the wages. In other words, each of the workers shall get as compensation an amount equal to the amount of wages awarded to him. The order of the Authority dated 30.12.1997 shall stand modified to this extent only. The appeal is allowed to this extent. No order as to costs."

(emphasis supplied)

23. The award of compensation, to the extent of one time/equal

to the amount of excess, apparently is the minimum

compensation, which the Authority could have awarded and,

therefore, the compensation awarded does not require any

interference.

24. Consequently, there is no force in the appeals, the same are,

therefore, dismissed.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J

11-36-Payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)