LALLY A S MAJOR Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution is directed against the award dated december 20, 2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act' ). The workman-respondent No. 2 has been awarded wages for the period of May 1, 2001 to May 27, 2001 and has also been award penalty equal to five, times of the delayed wages amounting to rs. 11,178/ -. The findings recorded by the authorities below reads thus:

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for consideration before us on February 27, 2008, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the amount awarded to the workman-respondent no. 2 shall be deposited. After the amount was deposited the same has been disbursed to the workman-respondent No. 2 subject to his furnishing adequate surety. Accordingly the amount stand paid to the workman-respondent No. 2.

(3.) MR. Munish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to persuade us to accept his submission that the claim of the workman respondent No. 2 is covered by clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act and not by clause (i) of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act. According to the learned counsel the provision with regard to penalty exceeding 10 times the amount of arrears of wages would not be applicable to the case of workman-respondent No. 2.