THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13456 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted calling in question the legality and validity of the order passed on 13.06.2008 by the 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Palasa, Srikakulam District in Minimum Wages Case No. 1 of 2008. The writ petitioner is the owner of a cinema theatre, where the 2nd respondent workman was engaged. The 2nd respondent workman has filed a claim petition in terms of Section 20 of Payment of Wages Act, 1948 before the 1st respondent competent authority. The principal allegation contained in the said claim petition is that the writ petitioner has not been paying the minimum wages, as notified by the State Government, through their G.O.Ms.No. 68, dated 28.12.2001 and the subsequent orders. Entertaining the said claim petition, the 1st respondent has issued a notice to the writ petitioner herein fixing the date of hearing as 23.05.2008. In spite of receiving the said notice, the petitioner has not chosen to enter her appearance. Hence, the matter was posted to 13.06.2008. On 13.06.2008 also, it is alleged that the writ petitioner did not enter her appearance. Therefore, the petitioner was set ex parte and after perusing the material available on record, the 1st respondent has passed an order on 05.07.2008 directing the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.20,060/- towards difference of wages and a further sum of Rs.20,060/- towards compensation aggregating to a sum of Rs.40,120/- within 30 days. In essence, it is this order, which is sought to be challenged in this Writ Petition. It is urged before this Court that the 2nd respondent workman is in the habit of borrowing loans and since he has not been repaying the said money, the management of the cinema theatre has informed the 2nd respondent workman to repay his creditors, who are creating nuisance at the work place. Because of this, the 2nd respondent workman has developed animus towards the writ petitioner and falsely lodged the claim. The 1st respondent, without examining anything, has passed the orders mechanically, accepting the claim in toto and also directing equal amount of compensation to be paid by the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent workman has pointed out that the writ petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, inasmuch as she has moved the 1st respondent by taking out Miscellaneous Petition No. 2 of 2008, seeking the orders passed on 05.07.2008 to be set aside. The 1st respondent, entertaining the said Miscellaneous Petition No. 2 of 2008, passed a detailed order on 25.10.2008, directing the writ petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.20,060/- being the original amount of claim made by the 2nd respondent workman, within 30 days and if she fails to do so, the 1st respondent workman has set out that the orders passed by it earlier would hold good and the writ petitioner has not adverted to this fact at all, though the writ petition has been instituted nearly eight months thereafter. Since the writ petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing the relevant material, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent workman would also urge that the 2nd respondent has satisfied the 1st respondent authority about the genuineness of his claim by placing reliance upon the orders passed by the State Government fixing the minimum wages payable and his claim is confined only to the differential amount between what has been paid to him and what has been prescribed as the minimum wages and the writ petitioner has no option except to pay the minimum wages. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. After giving my anxious consideration to the rival submissions, it is appropriate to observe that the writ petitioner having moved the 1st respondent competent authority by taking out Miscellaneous Petition No. 2 of 2008, seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent on 05.07.2008, in all fairness, ought to have disclosed the said fact while instituting this Writ Petition. The writ petitioner is undoubtedly guilty of approaching this Court with unclean hands, which disentitles her to seek equitable relief from this Court. However, what I have noticed from the order passed on 05.07.2008 by the 1st respondent is that, he has allowed the claim made by the 2nd respondent workman in a sum of Rs.20,060/-. In the absence of any contra material to show that the 2nd respondent workman has been paid the minimum wages by the writ petitioner from time to time as prescribed by the State, the claim of the 2nd respondent employee appears to be a genuine claim. However, the 1st respondent, without putting the writ petitioner on notice, ought not to have ordered for payment of compensation simultaneously. Question of payment of compensation would arise only after the competent authority arrives at a conclusion that the defaulting employer has been guilty of deliberate and wanton violation of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Only thereafter, the question of compensating the employee would arise. Therefore, while allowing the claim statement of a workman, compensation or interest as a part of compensation could not have been ordered simultaneously. To that extent, the order passed by the 1st respondent on 05.07.2008 deserves to be set aside, but however, it is worthy to notice that while entertaining Miscellaneous Petition No.2 of 2008, an order has been passed by the 1st respondent on 25.10.2008 directing the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.20,060/- before the authority within 30 days. Even that order, according to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent workman, has not been complied with. Therefore, the writ petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,060/- on or before 15.02.2011 before the 1st respondent and upon payment of the said amount, the same be disbursed to the 2nd respondent workman, without his furnishing any security. The amount already deposited by the petitioner will be given credit to. However, the 1st respondent thereafter will provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein, to resist the claim and also the obligation to pay compensation to the 2nd respondent workman. If the writ petitioner fails to avail such an opportunity, it is open to the 1st respondent to determine as to how much compensation should be paid to the 2nd respondent workman. In case the writ petitioner does not comply with this order also, it is certainly open to the 1st respondent to take such steps and measures, which are provided under law, for securing implementation of the orders passed by it on 05.07.2008. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 20th January 2011 Note: Issue CC in two days. ksld