THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 15596 of 1996 O R D E R: Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour for the respondents. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent – Authority under Minimum Wages Act in Minimum Wages Case No. 63 of 1994, on 19th June 1996. The writ petitioner was running a printing press at Nellore Town. The 3rd respondent – Assistant Labour Officer-II, Nellore had inspected the premises of the writ petitioner and alleged that he was not paying the minimum wages to three workmen, by name, Sri Govindu, Sri P. Subrahmanyam and Sri P. Seshaiah at the rates fixed by the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No. 60, dated 8th April 1991. The difference in underpayment of wages is estimated to be Rs.3,486/-. On that basis, a claim petition has been filed by the Assistant Labour Officer before the 2nd respondent herein, who passed the impugned order. It reads as under: “ The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of RS.3,486/- besides an amount of Rs.6,972/- (2 times) towards compensation totaling to Rs.10,458/- (Rupees ten thousand four hundred and fifty eight only) within a month from the date of receipt of this order.” Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order passed by the 2nd respondent – Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is absolutely a laconic order. He has not assigned any reasons as to why the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,486/- and as to why the penal amount @ two times was imposed as compensation. For sheer lack of application of mind on the part of the 2nd respondent Authority, the order deserves to be set at naught. The learned counsel would submit that even if the order is passed ex parte, as to why the claim submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer is found acceptable and as to why the penalty has been imposed has got to be set out in the order. For the sheer lack of this basic information, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore filed a counter-affidavit in the matter. It is contended that three workmen, who were found working in the press run and operated by the writ petitioner in the name and style of Rohini Printers, were found underpaid their wages during the inspection undertaken by the Assistant Labour Officer on 8th March 1994 at 12.50 p.m. and the wages were paid at rates less than those prescribed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 60, Labour and Employment Department, dated 8th April 1991 and hence, the 3rd respondent Assistant Labour Officer filed a claim application seeking recovery of the differential wages from the Proprietor of Rohini Printers so that the workmen, Sri Pagada Subrahmanyam, Sri Pagada Govindu and Sri P. Seshaiah will be paid the said amount. Since the petitioner is guilty of violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, he is also liable to be imposed penalty and hence, penalty was imposed. It was further contended in the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner did not cooperate with the proceedings and therefore, he was set ex parte on 7th June 1996 and since the claim was found to be tenable, the order was passed on 19th June 1996. In support of the above contention, the following data has been furnished relating to the dates on which the proceedings has been taken up and the reasons for their adjournments: “14.07.1995 --- Opp. Party counsel absent. 1995. --- Opp. Party counsel absent. 1995. --- Opp. Party and his counsel absent. 1995. --- On the request of the opp. Party counsel case adjourned. 1995. --- Opp. Party counsel prayed time. 1995. --- Opp. Party counsel absent. 1995. --- Opp. Party prayed time. 1996. --- Opp. Party counsel called absent. 1996. --- Opp. Party and his counsel absent. 1996. ---- Opp. Party and his counsel absent set ex parte. The short question, which falls for consideration, is as to the nature of the adjudication process, which, ultimately, resulted in passing the impugned order. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’) was enacted to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 2 defined various expressions found in the Act. The expression “appropriate Government” has been defined in Section 2(b), in relation to any other scheduled employment other than those covered by those mentioned in clause (i) thereof, the appropriate Government is the State Government. The expression “wages has been defined in a very elaborate manner, in Section 2(h). Section 3 enabled the appropriate Government to fix the minimum rates of wages payable to employees in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder and Section 11 made it clear that the minimum wages payable shall be paid in cash only. Section 12 thrust an obligation on every employer in respect of any scheduled employment to pay to every employee engaged by him wages at a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by the appropriate Government. Therefore, for the purpose of fixing the liability on the employer, there should be a notification issued by the appropriate Government fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to various categories of employees employed in scheduled employments. Section 18 required every employer to maintain such registers and records containing particulars of employees employed by him, wages paid to them, the receipts given by them and other relevant particulars in such form as is prescribed. Therefore, there should have been a finding recorded by the competent authority as to how much of wages have been paid by the writ petitioner to his employees and as to how they were falling short of the minimum rates of wages fixed by the appropriate Government. For entertaining the claims, the appropriate Government has been empowered, under Section 20 of the Act, to appoint any Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner, for the purpose of hearing and deciding all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages. Therefore, all claims are liable to be adjudicated by the competent authority appointed by the appropriate Government in terms of Section 20. When once there is an obligation created by the statute to hear and decide the validity or tenability of the claim, it goes without saying that appropriate reasons should be assigned indicating as to why the claim has been upheld. Reasons are the backbone for every adjudicatory process. They not only supply the necessary clarity to the person against whom the decision has gone but would also indicate clearly the lines on which the appropriate authority has applied his mind. It would also be transparent from the record as to whether he has taken into consideration the relevant factors or not. It will be apt to notice the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard in M.P. Industries Limited v. Union of India, wherein it has been held as under: “……… Ordinarily, the appellate or revisional tribunal shall give its own reasons succinctly; but in a case of affirmance where the original tribunal gives adequate reasons, the appellate tribunal may dismiss the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, agreeing with those reasons. What is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, neither the State Government’s nor the Central Government’s order discloses the reasons for rejecting the application of the appellant in the circumstances the Central Government’s order is vitiated, as it does not disclose any reasons for rejecting the revision application of the appellant.” From the record in the instant case, it will be difficult to decipher as to the reasons why the claim has been upheld. When penal provisions are given effect to, the reason for invoking such penal provisions also are required to be set out, for, the mitigating circumstances or factors are bound to be taken into account and consideration before invoking such penal provisions. For the aforesaid reasons, I consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for consideration in accordance with law. Since the 2nd respondent has furnished the details as to how the writ petitioner has not extended cooperation for deciding the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the writ petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.3,486/- which was found as the differential amount of wages with the 2nd respondent within 30 days from today. After the writ petitioner deposits, the entire matter may be heard and decided within two months thereafter. However, till a final decision is taken, the amount representing the differential wages deposited by the writ petitioner may not be disbursed to the employees concerned, as it may become difficult to recover the same later on from them. It shall be open to the 2nd respondent to invoke the penal provisions if the circumstances of the case warrant. No observations made in this order shall be construed as a reflection on the tenability or otherwise of the claim. In case, the petitioner herein fails to deposit or fails to cooperate in completion of the enquiry, it shall be open to the 2nd respondent to proceed ex parte against the writ petitioner. To the extent indicated supra, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd December 2009 Note: Registry to dispatch order copy Within a week’s time to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nellore. ksld