Civil Revision No. 4185 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4185 of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.9.2009 Labh Singh ......Petitioner Versus Bhoop Ram and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Authority under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short `the Act') on 24.5.2006, finding respondent No.1 entitled to minimum wages amounting to Rs.21,525/-. But since the petitioner had not deposited the same when it fell due and such non-payment has caused hardship to the respondent, the Authority awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.43,050/- i.e., twice the amount of minimum wages i.e., Rs.21,525/-. Five workers moved a joint application for claiming wages as agricultural labourers under the Act from the present petitioner for the period 1.5.2003 to 15.3.2004. It was pointed out that the wages paid to them were less than the prescribed wages of Rs.2,550/- per month or 1/4th Civil Revision No. 4185 of 2006 (2) share of the agricultural produce and that the balance amount comes to Rs.1,07,625/-. The present petitioner contested the said claim of the respondents and asserted that there is no relationship of master and servants; employee and employer or landlord and tenant between the parties and that the respondents are not agricultural labourers. In fact, Bhoop Singh is a tailor master and is doing the work of cutting and tailoring in his residential house. Gopi is doing the business of timber. Previously he was holding a liquor vend. Sona Devi and Sharda are Parda Nashin ladies and they have never worked in the fields of any farmer of the village. After considering the evidence of Bhoop Singh, who appeared as AW1 and that of respondent, who appeared as RW1, the petitioner was found to be owner of the agricultural land. It was found that from the cross- examination of the petitioner, it is apparent that his brothers Daman Singh and Kheta Singh, are residing in Punjab and one brother, namely, Jagrup Singh, resides in Sukhera Khera. It was, thus, found that the petitioner is a landlord having sufficient agricultural land. After considering the evidence of Bhoop Singh, it was found that only he has been able to prove that he was working as an agricultural labourer and consequently found that he is entitled to recover Rs.21,525/- as wages for the period mentioned in the application. The Authority under the Act has considered the entire evidence to return a finding that the applicant- respondent is an agricultural labourer and was engaged by the present petitioner. It has further been found that he has not been paid wages as claimed in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Civil Revision No. 4185 of 2006 (3) the Authority under the Act granted compensation of Rs.43,0500/- in terms of Section 20(3)(i) of the Act, which is highly excessive and has no reasonable nexus with the delay in payment of wages. The applicant- respondent has sought payment of minimum wages for the period 1.5.2003 to 15.3.2004 by filing an application on 9.11.2004. The Authority has passed an order directing the petitioner to make payment on 24.5.2006. It is, thus, argued that there was a dispute regarding engagement of the respondent as an agricultural labourer with the present petitioner. Such dispute came to be adjudicated upon on 24.5.2006. Keeping in view the period for which the respondent has claimed minimum wages, time spent by filing of petition before the Authority and the time spent in the proceedings, I am of the opinion that the grant of compensation twice the amount of minimum wages is highly excessive in nature and that such amount of compensation cannot be justified. Therefore, in the interest of justice and further keeping in view the period of default, I am of the opinion that an equivalent amount as that of wages unpaid, would be fair and reasonable. In view of the said fact, the present petition is disposed of with the modification in the impugned Award to the effect that the respondent shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs.21,525/- instead of Rs.43,025/- as awarded by the Authority under the Act. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 1.9.2009 ds