VISHAL ENTERPRISES Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.1.2001 of Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act(for short ?the Act?) whereby the Competent Authority directed the petitioner to make payment of the claimed amount of difference of wages to the employees as per Annexure B within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) Briefly the facts relevant for deciding this writ petition are that some employees of the petitioner filed an application under section 20(2) of the Act through General Secretary of respondent No.1 claiming that the petitioner had not paid minimum rates of wages, over-time allowance and wages for National holidays/public holidays to the 26 workers. The contention of the petitioner was that he had been paying minimum wages to the workmen and also over-time as per rules. The petitioner/employer in proof of payment of wages to the workmen produced copies of pay slips of the workmen before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority refused to take these pay slips into consideration on the ground that these pay slips had not been prepared in form 11 prescribed under Rule 26(2) of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules. The petitioner also placed on record a settlement entered into between the petitioner and some of the workers, namely at serial Nos.8,11,12,13,14, 15,17,18,19, 21 to 26 regarding payment of over-time. This settlement was arrived at on 24.10.1999. The said document was taken on record but was not relied upon by the Competent Authority on the ground that the document was bearing signatures only of the workmen and not that of the petitioner and that the document did not mention the amount paid to the workmen. Petitioner had also stated that as far as workmen at serial nos.7,9,10 and 16 were concerned, payment of difference of wages had been made to them during the hearing and produced original payment slips before the Authority. The Authority rejected the payment slips on the ground that the payments slips were not in Form 11 as per Rule 26(2) of Rules. Competent Authority observed that petitioner had not maintained the record and register as per rules and therefore, the record produced by the petitioner could not be accepted as authentic and legal. The Competent Authority therefore, directed for payment of difference of wages as given in Annexure B.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure B shows that it contains names of 19 workmen out of 26, on whose behalf the claim was filed. The claim of 7 workmen was rejected by the Authority on the ground that they had not authorised General Secretary of the Union to present the claim on their behalf. Along with the application, a drawn and due statement was filed by the workmen. Drawn and due statement of Suresh Chand, the first workman in the Annexure B would show that for August and September 1998 this workman had stated that due amount was Rs.2452/- and drawn amount was also Rs.2452/-, still he gave a balance difference of Rs.884/- for each month. Workman Yash Pal had made a statement before the Authority that he had received his wages in full and only Rs.273/- were due for 3 days over-time wages. But Annexure B shows that Authority has asked for payment of Rs.4679/- to him (Yash Pal). In respect of Ramesh Chand, the Authority has asked payment of Rs.952/-, while the order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Authority shows that Ramesh Chand had also stated that due amount was only Rs.273/-. Naval Kishore had also signed the settlement and submitted that main dispute was in respect of wages for 15th August, 2nd October and election day which was declared as public holiday. The petitioner had stated before the Authority that the petitioner had paid over time wages to the workmen for these dates at single rate.