1 LPA218/10 in WP No.4469/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.218 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4469 of 2010 M/s.Unity Intraprojects Ltd. ... Appellant versus Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-II Mumbai & Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act and others ... Respondents ... Mr. A.K.Jalisatgi for the appellant. Mr.R.A.Lokhande for the respondents CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 11th October 2010 P.C. 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The relevant facts are that the establishment of the appellant was inspected by the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act. It was found that wages less than minimum wages are being paid. Therefore, 2 LPA218/10 in WP No.4469/10 on the basis of the report of the Inspector, show cause notice was issued to the appellant that an amount of Rs.2,42,388/- is to be paid by the appellant as deficit of the minimum wages. The case of the appellant is that on receiving the show cause notice, this payment was made. To the show cause notice, reply was sent but instead of sending reply to the Regional Labour Commissioner, the reply was sent to the Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner(Central). In the reply it was stated that the amount of deficit has been paid to the worker. Even the documents supporting the payment was also produced. Respondent no.3 – authority under the Minimum Wages Act passed an order on 31st March 2010. He found that payment has not been made and therefore, he directed payment of Rs.2,42,388/- as deficit of the minimum wages plus Rs.7,27,164/- as penalty. This order was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4469 of 2010. The submission of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that payment was actually made to the workers. Still the respondent no.3 has directed payment again and has imposed penalty on the assumption that payment has not been made. Therefore, the order impugned in the petition is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge decided the petition by order dated 11th August 2010. The learned Single Judge found that payment has been made but still observed 3 LPA218/10 in WP No.4469/10 “The authority has taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner although the 1st party submitted it to the Dy.Commissioner of Labour instead of Regional Labour Commissioner. On the basis of the material on record the authority has imposed, the penalty equal to three times the differential wages 3. After having heard learned counsel and after having perused the record, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from non application of mind though the learned Single Judge has observed in her order: “Admittedly, Rs.2,42,388/- has been paid as minimum wages to the workers. However, this amount has been paid belatedly” The respondent no.3 had proceeded on the assumption that the payment has not been made and has imposed the penalty on that assumption. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge on finding that the payment has actually been made should have remitted the matter back to the respondent no.3 to decide what penalty if any, is liable to be imposed. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4 LPA218/10 in WP No.4469/10 O R D E R 4. The order dated 11th August 2010 passed in Writ Petition no.4469 of 2010 and the order dated 31st March 2010 passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act are set aside. The proceedings are remitted back to the authority under the Minimum Wages Act for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. Parties shall be at liberty to file additional pleadings and evidence, if any, if they so desire. 6. Appeal disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)