Disposed¶22

Wazir Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2026CWP/10017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Minimum Wages Act, 1948; brick kiln workers; family members excluded from wage benefit; workmen not made party before wage authority; writ petition disposed of as not pressed; liberty to agitate fresh minimum-wage claims; State of Punjab; respondent No.5; Kirti Singh J.; Chandigarh; decision 15.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the workmen concerned (family members of the petitioners) to agitate their claim before the appropriate authorities to claim minimum wages against the work done by them by showing that they had worked with the concerned respondent-brick kiln. ¶22

Wazir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CWP No. 10017 of 2024

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(253) CWP No. 10017 of 2024 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026

¶5

Wazir Singh and Others

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and Others .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Prince Pal, Advocate for Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶13

¶14

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.5 and has filed his power of attorney. The same is taken on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, benefit of wages, for the work done, has been given to the petitioners by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 vide order dated 17.05.2023 but the family members of the petitioners, who were also working with the respondent No.5, have not been granted the said benefit.

¶17

On being asked to point out as to whether the said workmen/family members of the petitioners were made a party before the authorities concerned or not, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly

¶18

RITIKA 2026.07.18 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No. 10017 of 2024 -2-

¶20

concedes the fact that they were not made a party before the authorities exercising the jurisdiction under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶21

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the workmen concerned to agitate their claim before the appropriate authorities to claim minimum wages against the work done by them by showing that they had worked with the concerned respondent-brick kiln.

¶22

Ordered accordingly.

¶23

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 15, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶24

RITIKA 2026.07.18 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Wazir Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wazir Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Vs the Presiding Officer

Raibahadur Lala B.D.Trust Vs Labour Court and Ors.

Gurmail; Kaur Vs P.O.Labour Court,Bhatinda and Another

Haryana State Vs Chandi Ram and Anr.

Naveen Kumaqr Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

Prem Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Others