1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & the respondent no. 1 herein directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 51,024/- towards difference of wages payable to one Shri Dashrath Vaghela & seven other employees named in the Annexure appended to the order.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein entered into a contract for security services vide contract no. AMD/MMA/ASSET/SC/15/2005-06 in the Ahmedabad Asset which came to an end in May/June 2010. The contractual workers were engaged in three categories and were paid wages as applicable to Building Construction and Road Maintenance Workers. Accordingly, tenders were invited and the contract was awarded to respondent no. 2 for a period of three years w.e.f 17.06.2010 to 16.06.2013. Thereafter the contractual workers raised an issue qua wages at a rate being paid to them and claimed that they should be paid wages applicable to building construction and road maintenance and not at the rate payable to watch and ward category.
2.1 An inspection report was served upon the petitioner which was replied vide letter dated 12.11.2010. Thereafter the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-II preferred an application to the Authority under the M.W Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ahmedabad under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The respondent no. 1 authority disposed of the claim petition vide order dated 01.02.2012 directing the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2 contractor to pay the amount of Rs. 51,024/- towards overtime wages.
3. Mr.
Dipak Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the respondent no. 1 is wholly untenable in law. A bare perusal of the contract clearly indicates that the contract was only for providing security services and that the petitioner paid all wages which was applicable to the contractor employees.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. Looking to the nature of controversy in the matter and considering the averments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner it appears that the imposition of penalty at ten times the amount is on higher side. It also appears that the competent authority has not exercised the discretion judiciously. Therefore, considering the averments and the delay caused this court is of the view that it shall be in the interests of justice if the order is modified to the extent that the amount of penalty shall be substituted by one time instead of ten times. As regards the quantum of the amount is considered, learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to point out anything on record.
5. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The penalty of 10 times compensation is hereby substituted with one time payment of compensation as penalty in addition to the regular payment of difference of wages. The order dated 17.08.2011 is modified accordingly. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
It will be open for the aggrieved party to provide proof of making payment of regular salary, minimum wages as well as one time penalty. The same will be done within four weeks from today. If it is not done, it will be approach this Court by way of review application. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Jyoti Top