Civil Writ Petition No. 605 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 605 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 22, 2011 Principal, Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Ladwa & another ....Petitioners VERSUS Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Kurukshetra Area and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 19. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to seek quashing of order dated 7.11.2008, whereby it has not been only directed to pay minimum wages, but has been imposed one time penalty for not paying the minimum wages to the respondents- employees. The review application filed by the petitioners was rejected and thus, they have filed the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.2 to 19 filed an application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act (for short 'the Act') on the ground that they were not receiving the minimum wages as fixed by the Government. The Civil Writ Petition No. 605 of 2009 -2- petitioners appeared in response to the notice and deposited 17 cheques amounting to Rs.1,24,040/- though under protest. Subsequently, it was noticed that the arrears of Rs.27,538/- are still payable. That arrears were also cleared. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the respondents have already been retrenched from the service before they approached the Court for grant of minimum wages and hence, the application filed by them was not maintainable as they being not employees of the petitioner-Institution. In response, counsel for the respondents has referred to Pali Devi Versus Chairman Managing Committee, 1996 (2) SCT 535 , to urge that an ex-employee would also be entitled to invoke the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by making reference to the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act has held that the statutory language employed in the Form is a good hint to discern the true scope of Section 20 (2) to determine whether a past employee can invoke the provisions of the Act or not. It is held that Section 20 (2) of the Act along with Section 20 (1), would also entitle the ex employee to invoke the provisions of the Act. Relevant provisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under:- “8. In Raikot's case, the Punjab High Court however preferred the earlier view of the Madras High Court in Wakefield' Estate case opting for the literal construction. Had the existence of the Rules and Form VI been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, perhaps the interpretation would Civil Writ Petition No. 605 of 2009 -3- have been different. M.C. Raikot's case arose after retrenchment of an employee with effect from April 7, 1961 and on his filing an application under Section 20(2) of the Act, when the Rules and Form VI had become operative with effect from 28.10.1960. The language of the Form, covering the cases of past and existing employees, was in accord not only with the latter view of the Madras High Court and the Kerala High Court but also with the views of the Patna High Court in Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Patna and others, [1976 ILR - Patna Series, 318] and the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in Athni Municipality vs. Shetteppa Laxman Pattan and others [1965 volume 2 LLJ 307]. Thus on account of the preponderance of Authority, Sections 20(2) and 2(i) had to be read alongwith the Rules and Form VI to lean in favour of the view that both past and present employees were entitled to move in the matter. Such would be a purposive approach, which would carry out the necessary intendment of the statute, for which the Rules and the Form lend a hand to carry out the objectives of the Act. The language-employed therein, even though executive voiced, is more Civil Writ Petition No. 605 of 2009 -4- often than not, demonstrative of the legislative purpose. So viewed, the intendment of the statute is furthered if an ex-employee too is held entitled to seek relief under Section 20(2) of the Act.” Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are not entitled to move the application under the Act. Counsel for the petitioners then contends that direction by the authority to impose one time penalty is in violation of the provisions of the Section 20 (3) (i) of the Act. This provision reads as under :- 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 actual paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess.” A simple reading of the provision would clearly indicate that where payment is less than the minimum rates of wages, then the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceeds the amount of actual paid can be awarded as a compensation upto 10 times. The compensation is of the amount which is the excess besides payment made of the minimum wages. The submission that this provision would apply Civil Writ Petition No. 605 of 2009 -5- only when the difference is in excess of minimum wages to attract this provision may amount to misreading the same. The language of the Section is clear that difference should be between payment made and the minimum wages payable and so compensation payable is rightly ordered on the basis of difference between the actual paid and the minimum wages. There is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. February 22, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE