Dismissed

M/S Star Special Air Gasses Pvt. Ltd. v. the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act 1936

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jul 2011CWP/10511/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an award under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 granting overtime wages to an employee. The High Court held that despite a lack of evidence for 12-hour work days, it would not interfere with the award as the dispute amount exceeded anticipated litigation expenses, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned award dated 14.07.2009 was upheld.

M/S Star Special Air Gasses Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.10511 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2011

¶4

¶5

M/s. Star Special Air Gases Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

. . . . Petitioner

¶7

VS.

¶8

The Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 & Anr. . . . . Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. Sanjay S Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner *****

¶17

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The petitioner-Management is aggrieved by the Award dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the Authorities under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short, ‘the Act’) whereby the second respondent has been awarded a sum of Rs.48967/- along with 12% interest.

¶19

(2). The Authorities under the Act while deciding issue No.1&2 relied upon Exs.P2, P3 and P4 and held that the employee worked for more than one month and as such he was entitled to draw wages for the period w.e.f. 30.10.2007 to 20.02.2008 amounting to Rs.41,000/- which included overtime wages as the employee was working as a Driver. The Authority has thereafter awarded interest @ 12% per

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.10511 of 2011.doc

¶22

annum w.e.f. 07.03.2008 as well as compensation of Rs.2500/-.

¶23

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned Award.

¶24

(4). Though it appears from the record that no evidence was produced that the employee worked for 12 hours a day entitling him over-time wages, however, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the amount in dispute of over-time wages would be more than the litigation expenses likely to be incurred by both the parties.

¶25

(5). Dismissed.

¶26

07.07.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

¶27

M/S Star Special Air Gasses Pvt. Ltd. v. the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act 1936

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Star Special Air Gasses Pvt. Ltd. v. the Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act 1936

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satpal Aggarwal etc. Vs State Ofpb.Etc.

Gurmail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vashisht Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurdial Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranbir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raghubir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.