Partly allowed

Abdul Baneez v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Nov 2022WPMS/161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a writ petition challenging an Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for erroneous low wage assessment and insufficient compensation. While dismissing arguments on rate and compensation quantum, the Court modified the order to correct a calculation oversight regarding total payable amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.13.2022 modified to direct respondents to pay ₹37,500 (₹12,500 wages + ₹25,000 compensation). Amount deposited by respondents to be released without security.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

W PMS 1 6 1 / 2 0 2 2
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

Mr. Mohd. Matlub, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Standing Counsel,
for the State/ respondent no. 1.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for
the respondent no. 2.
Petitioners filed an application under
Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
with the contention that they were engaged
by respondent no. 2 and 3 for peeling,
harvesting and transporting sugarcane from
agricultural field to the cane society, between
25.10.2007 to 30.3.2008 and petitioners
performed the assigned task but they were
not paid their due wages. They were paid
only ₹23,500/- and the remaining ₹55,955/-
is yet to be paid to them. In the application,
petitioners further contended that they were
entitled to wages @ ₹115/- per day.
Vide order dated 11/ 13.10.2021, the
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, partly allowed petitioners’ application
and held that they are entitled to a sum of
₹12,500/- as wages and also compensation
for delayed payment of wages to the extent
of two times of outstanding wages.
In
this
writ
petition,
petitioners
contend that learned Authority erred in not
considering claim of petitioners for wages @
₹115/- per day. It is further contended that
under Section 20(3)(i) of the aforesaid Act,
compensation up to ten times of the balance
wages has to be awarded, while in the
present case compensationofonly two times

of the balance wages has been ordered to be paid to petitioners.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned
Counsel appearing for the private respondent, however, refers to the order passed by the Authority on 11/ 13.10.2021, where the submission made by the petitioners has been recorded. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that petitioners had conceded that they had agreed to do the
work of peeling, harvesting and transporting sugarcane @ ₹12 per quintal. It further reveals that stand taken by respondent no. 2 and 3 was that petitioners had agreed to do the work of peeling, harvesting and transporting sugarcane @ ₹10/- per quintal. Since petitioners themselves conceded before the Authority that they had entered into a contract with respondent no. 2 and 3 to do the entire work @ ₹12 per
quintal, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Authority in not considering the case set up by the petitioners in their application, where it was pleaded that they were entitled to wages @ ₹115/- per
day. As regards the second contention
raised on behalf of petitioners that
compensation to the extent of ten times of
the balance wages was to be given, here it is
to be noted that Section 20(3)(i) of the
aforesaid Act provides the outer limit for
award of compensation. In other words, ten
times is the maximum limit, up to which
compensation can be awarded. Therefore, the
order passed by the Authority cannot be
questioned only on this ground that
compensation at a lower rate was awarded.
In such view of the matter, I do not
find any infirmity in the award which may warrant anyinterference bythis Court under

of the balance wages has been ordered to be
paid to petitioners.

Mr.
Ghanshyam
Joshi,
learned

Counsel
appearing
for
the
private
respondent, however, refers to the order
passed by the Authority on 11/ 13.10.2021,
where
the
submission
made
by
the
petitioners has been recorded. Perusal of the
impugned order reveals that petitioners had
conceded that they had agreed to do the

work of peeling, harvesting and transporting
sugarcane @ ₹12 per quintal. It further
reveals that stand taken by respondent no. 2
and 3 was that petitioners had agreed to do
the
work
of
peeling,
harvesting
and
transporting sugarcane @ ₹10/- per quintal.
Since
petitioners
themselves
conceded before the Authority that they had
entered into a contract with respondent no. 2
and 3 to do the entire work @ ₹12 per

quintal, therefore, I do not find any infirmity
in the order passed by the Authority in not
considering the case set up by the petitioners
in their application, where it was pleaded that
they were entitled to wages @ ₹115/- per

day.
As regards the second contention

raised
on
behalf
of
petitioners
that

compensation to the extent of ten times of

the balance wages was to be given, here it is

to be noted that Section 20(3)(i) of the

aforesaid Act provides the outer limit for

award of compensation. In other words, ten

times is the maximum limit, up to which

compensation can be awarded. Therefore, the

order passed by the Authority cannot be

questioned
only
on
this
ground
that

compensation at a lower rate was awarded.

In such view of the matter, I do not

find any infirmity in the award which may
warrant anyinterference bythis Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution. However, there is a small discrepancy in the impugned
order, inasmuch as, the Authority had
quantified the outstanding wages at ₹12,500/ - and had ordered for payment of compensation to the extent of two times the outstanding wages. Thus in terms of the said order, petitioners would be entitled to ₹12,500/- as wages, plus ₹25,000/- as compensation, however, due to oversight, learned Authority has ordered for payment of total sum of ₹25,000/- only under both heads. In such view of the matter, impugned order dated 11/ 13.10.2022 is modified and it is provided that respondent no. 2 and 3 shall be liable to pay ₹37,500/- to petitioners in terms of the order passed by the Authority. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi submits that respondent no. 2 and 3 have deposited ₹25,000/- before the Authority. He assures the Court that balance amount will be deposited by his clients within two weeks. The amount so deposited shall be released in favour of the petitioners without asking for any security or surety. In case respondent no. 2 and 3 fail to deposit the balance amount, appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount may be initiated against them.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2 .1 1 .2 0 2 2 Pr

Article 227 of the Constitution. However,
there is a small discrepancy in the impugned

order,
inasmuch
as,
the
Authority
had

quantified
the
outstanding
wages
at
₹12,500/ - and had ordered for payment of
compensation to the extent of two times the
outstanding wages. Thus in terms of the said
order,
petitioners
would
be
entitled
to
₹12,500/- as wages, plus ₹25,000/- as
compensation, however, due to oversight,
learned Authority has ordered for payment of
total sum of ₹25,000/- only under both
heads.
In such view of the matter, impugned
order dated 11/ 13.10.2022 is modified and it
is provided that respondent no. 2 and 3 shall
be liable to pay ₹37,500/- to petitioners in
terms of the order passed by the Authority.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi submits that
respondent no. 2 and 3 have deposited
₹25,000/- before the Authority. He assures
the Court that balance amount will be
deposited by his clients within two weeks.
The amount so deposited shall be
released in favour of the petitioners without
asking for any security or surety.
In case respondent no. 2 and 3 fail to
deposit the balance amount, appropriate
proceedings for recovery of the amount may
be initiated against them.

( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
2 .1 1 .2 0 2 2
Pr

Abdul Baneez v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Baneez v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Gyatri Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Cane Development and Sugar Industries

Umesh Kumar Vs District Magistrate Collector Dehradun

Umesh Kumar Vs District Magistrate Collector Dehraudn

Praveen Salera Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rishipal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhagat Ram Uniyal Vs State of Uttarakhand