KHODAL CORPORATION Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.12.2011, whereby the authority under the Minimum Wages Act rejected the application dated 14.6.2011 for review of order dated 19.5.2011 by which the petitioner-Corporation was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 47,250 being amount of difference of wages at Rs. 4,320 and 10 times compensation of Rs. 43,200 and further ordered to pay the same within 15 days. The short facts leading to the present petition are that on 6.8.2009, the Inspector, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) had issued a Notice dated 6.8.2009, whereby the petitioner-Corporation was called upon to show cause within 15 days to rectify the irregularities mentioned therein. Oh 10.7.2009, the petitioner has paid the difference of weekly payment of Rs. 4,130 to the concerned workman, who has signed the vouchers regarding the receipt of the amount. On 13.5.2010, the petitioner has submitted its reply along with the vouchers of the difference of wages paid to said Nathani. The Authority had passed an order below Claim Application No. MWA-121 of 2009, whereby vide order dated 19.5.2011, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 47,250 being amount of difference of wages at Rs. 4,320 and 10 times compensation of Rs. 43,200 and further ordered to pay the same within 15 days. On 14.6.2011, the petitioner has immediately filed a Misc. Application under Rule 29(4) of the Minimum Wages Rules (Central) and has requested to set aside the order dated 19.5.2011 passed in M.W. Application No. 121 of 2009 and to restore the same for adjudication on merits. The Authority has rejected the said application vide order dated 28.12.2011. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this present petition.

(2.) Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. Looking to the nature of controversy in the matter and considering the averments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that the imposition of penalty at ten times of the amount is on a higher side. It also appears that the Competent Authority has not exercised the discretion judiciously. Therefore, considering the averments and the delay caused, this Court is of the view that it shall be in interests of justice, if the order is modified to the extent that the amount of penalty shall be substituted by one time instead of ten times. As regards the quantum of the amount is considered, learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out anything on record.

(3.) Accordingly, the petition is party-allowed. The penalty of ten times compensation is hereby substituted with one time payment of compensation as penalty in addition to the regular payment of difference of wages. One time penalty instead of ten times penalty is imposed by the authority. Therefore, one time penalty Is to be deposited before the appropriate authority. The order dated 19.5.2011 is modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. It will be open for the aggrieved party to provide proof of making payment of regular salary at minimum wages as well as one time penalty. The same will be done within four weeks from today. If it is not done, it will be open for the respondent to approach this Court by way of Review Application. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly.