CWP No. 3721 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3721 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.03.2010 Hoshiarpur National Transport (P) Ltd. ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 01.02.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, whereby an application under Section 20 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Wages Act') preferred by respondent No. 2- Prem Singh has been partly allowed holding him entitled to an amount of CWP No. 3721 of 2010 2 Rs. 27,691/- as difference of wages between minimum wages fixed by the Government and actual payment made to respondent No. 2-Prem Singh. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim, which has been made by respondent No. 2 under Section 20 (2) of the Wages Act, is barred by limitation as the period prescribed for making such a claim is six months'. He contends that the claim was for the period from 01.03.2002 to 25.07.2005 and, therefore, the application, which was preferred on 23.06.2006, could not be entertained being not maintainable. His further contention is that the Authority has granted the wages to respondent No. 2 for the period of April to July, 2005 despite the fact that respondent No. 2 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not worked with the petitioner during the said period. He, on this basis, submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. It is true that as per Section 20 (2) of the Wages Act, an application has to be presented within six months' from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount became payable. However, a proviso has been added thereto wherein discretion has been given to the Authority to entertain the said application if there is a sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. To a specific question put by this Court as to whether any objection to the maintainability of the application was taken before the Authority, the counsel for the petitioner has accepted that no such objection taken. A perusal of the Award would further show that the services of the workman were terminated by the petitioner, which termination has been challenged by the workman and the matter of his wrongful termination is CWP No. 3721 of 2010 3 pending adjudication before the Labour Court at Jalandhar. The stand of the Management was that respondent No. 2-workman had abandoned the service. It is admitted by the Management before the Authority that respondent No. 2 was paid salary @ Rs. 2492/- per month. The Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, has taken into consideration the notification of the Government of Punjab, Annexure 'B', which provided for the minimum wages. On consideration of the said notification, the competent authority has come to a conclusion that the salary paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 was below the minimum wages as fixed by the Government. On consideration of this fact, the matter has been adjudicated and the competent authority has come to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 is entitled to an amount of Rs. 27,691/- as difference of wages between the wages fixed by the Government and actual payment to respondent No. 2 against the claim of Rs. 30740/-. There is no misreading of the evidence on behalf of respondent No. 1 which would require interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show from either the pleadings before the Authority or the statements made by the parties that respondent No. 2 has not worked with the petitioner after April, 2005. As a matter of fact, the Authority has, on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, come to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 has failed to prove that he had worked in the month of May, 2005 and, therefore, has held him not entitled to the claim of wages for the said month. There is no irregularity or illegality committed by the Authority which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. That apart, the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition, is dated 01.02.2008. More than two years have passed since the CWP No. 3721 of 2010 4 passing of the impugned order. No explanation whatsoever has come forth from the petitioner in the present writ petition or during the arguments justifying the delay in preferring the present writ petition. The amount to which the respondent No. 2 has been held entitled to is only Rs. 27,691/- which also has been assessed by the competent authority on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence and after due consideration of the same. On the ground of delay also, the present writ petition deserves to be rejected. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is ordered to be dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 03, 2010 pj