Partly allowed

Bharat Electronics v. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jul 2011CWP/18032/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealing an excessive compensation order under the Minimum Wages Act, this court found the Authority's penalty unjustified as the petitioner had valid grounds to defend the claim. The compensation was set aside, though the earlier wage difference already paid was not to be claimed again.

What did the court decide?

The amount of compensation ordered by the authority was set aside; the petitioner shall not claim the amount of difference of wages already paid.

Bharat Electronics Vs Authority Under the… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 18032 of 1991

¶3

Date of decision : 25.07.2011

¶4

M/s Bharat Electronics Limited

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and others

¶8

......Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶12

M/s Bharat Electronics Limited has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act whereby private respondents were allowed a difference of wages paid and as determined by it alongwith eight times the amount by way of compensation.

¶13

Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Sr. Counsel raised number of grounds to challenge this order. As per counsel, the private respondents had filed this time barred claim and the respondents had claimed minimum wages but previously they were on training. As per the counsel at the relevant time, it was not even the scheduled appointment.

¶14

The writ petition is of year 1991. The issue involved is of difference of wages which works out to be 6,828.50. Over this amount the Authority had imposed penalty/compensation of 54,628/- and accordingly, had allowed total amount of ` 61,456.50.

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 18032 of 1991

¶16

¶17

While admitting the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court had stayed the payment of compensation i.e. amount of 54,628/-. The amount of 6,828.50 has been paid. At this belated stage, it will be futile to determine the issues raised as the amount involved is too meagre and the same has been paid long ago. Only aspect that may require consideration is the direction to pay compensation.

¶18

I have considered the reasoning given by the Authority in allowing this compensation. The petitioner was justified in defending the claim in view of the challenge as raised in the writ petition and it can not be said that they were raising this objection without much justification. Thus, the action of the authority to direct payment of excessive compensation on the ground that the petitioner had defended the claim does not appear justified.

¶19

Therefore, the amount of compensation as ordered by the authority is set aside. The petitioner, however, shall not claim the amount of difference of wages what is already paid.

¶20

The writ petition is, accordingly partly allowed.

¶21

(RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶22

July 25, 2011 reena

Bharat Electronics v. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Electronics v. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

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

Neeta Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Financial Commisioner and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Hc Jai Bhagwan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Asi Balvaan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Gokal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.