High Court dismissed multiple appeals filed by the State challenging orders under the Minimum Wages Act. The Court held the State remains liable even if implementation was by Panchayats and found the compensation awarded to be appropriate, rejecting claims of arbitrariness.
Appeals dismissed; no interference with the compensation awarded by the Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJD/017246]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1038/2022
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 895/2022
Versus
(2 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 943/2022
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 967/2022
Versus
----Appellants
Versus
(3 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 971/2022
Versus
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 984/2022
Versus
(4 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 988/2022
Versus
Versus
Versus
(5 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1033/2022
Versus
Versus
Versus
(6 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
Versus
Versus
Versus
(7 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1082/2022
Versus
Versus
----Appellants
Versus
(8 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
Versus
Versus
----Appellants
Versus
(9 of 16) [SAW-1038/2022]
[2023/RJJD/017246]
| ----Respondents |
|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by |
|---|---|
| Mr. Rishi Soni | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Surendra Bagmalani |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
25/05/2023
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
(10 of 16)
the services rendered by them while working under the employment and direction of various Panchayat Samitis in relation to the tube-wells, repairing of the pipelines and maintaining water supply at the villages.
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
(11 of 16)
decided on 13.07.2017 as upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.247/2013 – State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Nemi Chand & Ors. decided on 24.08.2017 and came to the conclusion that as the issue raised was squarely covered by the said judgments, there was no merit in the writ petitions and after reproducing the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the writ petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the rejection of the writ petitions filed by the State, by learned Single Judge in the circumstances of the case is not justified, inasmuch as, the plea raised by the appellants-petitioners, regarding inapplicability of the judgment in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra) was not considered. 8. Further submissions have been made that during pendency of the writ petitions, the amount of difference, as ordered by the authority, has already been paid to the respondents-workmen. However, the issue pertaining to award of compensation is still pending. It was submitted that the award of compensation in the present case was not justified and that the authority has not recorded any reasons for awarding the compensation and, therefore, the award of compensation deserves to be set aside.
(12 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
another Scheme i.e. the Gramin Janta Jal Yojana, which was squarely applicable to the present case.
“The challenge in this group of appeals is against a common order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State sought to challenge an order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court upholding the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act by which the Public
(13 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
Health and Engineering Department of the State and the concerned Gram Panchayat has been made jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due to the concerned employees (Pump Operators) as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
The Scheme-Gramin Janta Jal Yojna under which the respondents were appointed was floated by the State Government and the implementation thereof was entrusted to the concerned Gram Panchayat. Under the Scheme, according to the appellant, contribution of funds to be provided by the State for the employees is only Rs.500/- per month and the rest of the expenditure is to be borne by the Gram Panchayat(s). It is on the aforesaid basis that the order granting minimum wage holding the Department jointly and severally liable to pay the minimum wages has been challenged.
The Scheme in question was introduced and implemented for ensuring safe drinking water for the residents of the concerned villages. The Scheme itself was floated by the Government and the funds for implementation of the Scheme are to be paid by the State Government. If that be so, it is difficult to understand as to why the State alongwith Gram Panchayat cannot be held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.
It at all such a situation, namely, the question of apportionment of funds arise, the same can also be dealt with by suitable adjustments made in the amounts allocated/to be allocated by the State to the Panchayats. However, that would not be a sufficient basis to find fault with the order of the primary authority or in the order of learned Single Judge which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. We, therefore, find no merit in any of these appeals. The appeals filed by the State are consequently dismissed.”
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
(14 of 16)
payment of the difference between the amount paid and the minimum wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the question of apportionment of funds can be dealt with between the State and the Panchayat Samiti(s) and so far as, the order of payment passed by the authority against the State was concerned, the same did not call for any interference and consequently upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court.
“(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or given them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may without prejudice to
(15 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct-
(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess.”
(16 of 16)
[2023/RJJD/017246]
[SAW-1038/2022]
“We do not agree that no interference with the award of the authority was called for. It was called for in the matter of the compensation awarded. Rather than remitting the matter to the High Court, we have heard learned counsel. We are satisfied that the award of compensation is exorbitant. We think, in the circumstances, that the amount of the compensation should be equivalent to the amount of the wages. In other words, each of the workers shall get as compensation an amount equal to the amount of wages awarded to him. The order of the Authority dated 30.12.1997 shall stand modified to this extent only. The appeal is allowed to this extent. No order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
11-36-Payal/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Government is liable for minimum wage violation where work was done under state scheme but paid by Panchayat.
Whether the authority acted arbitrarily by awarding compensation equal to the difference amount instead of up to ten times.
Whether the appeals challenging the lower court dismissal are maintainable despite delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Superintending Engineer, PHED, Sikar & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Rai & Ors.Referred¶266
(Civil Appeal No.11355/2013)
Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶266
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2017)
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Nemi Chand & Ors.Applied¶266
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.247/2013
Prerna Sahygo Vs. Authority under Minimum Wages & Ors.Distinguished¶307
(2001) 9 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Rajasthan
Various Employees of PHED/Panchayat
ARUN BHANSALI
RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
