(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. A. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. Though notices have been served on the respondents, no one appears for the respondents. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25/04/2012, passed in Special Civil Application No. 2778 of 2012. The brief facts of the case, as per Para 2 and 2.1 of the aforesaid order, are extracted as under:
“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/15/200506 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 being paid to them and claimed that they should be paid wages applicable to building construction and road maintenance and not 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. 1178038.50 towards difference of wages and Rs. 11780385 as 10 times compensation thereon.”
2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has paid the quantum of amount of minimum wages, which was ordered by the authority. The only dispute before the learned Single Judge was with regard to ten times penalty imposed on the appellant. The learned Single Judge has reduced the penalty from ten times to one time. This appeal is confined only to remaining one time penalty.
3. Counsel for the appellant has urged that respondent No. 2 has not come to contest the matter. Even if penalty imposed on the appellant, it has to be passed to the workmen. Since, while the contract was going on, the minimum wages is directed by the authority to the appellant, therefore, we are of the opinion that the discretion ought not to have been exercised by the authority. Therefore, since, the learned Single Judge has reduced nine time penalty, we deem it just and proper to direct the entire penalty to be deleted and is not required to be paid by the appellant because, in the beginning of the contract itself, the dispute has been sorted out and the minimum wages have been paid to the workmen. Therefore, one time penalty, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, is set aside. Since, the respondents are paying the quantum of minimum wages to the workmen, no further orders are required to be passed.
4. In the result this appeal succeeds as allowed. The entire penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. Any amount deposited by the appellant before the Registry of the Court in pursuance to the interim order passed in the appeal, shall be refunded to the appellant within one month from today.
4.1 In view of main Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Application. The same is accordingly disposed of.
[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren