THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12270 of 1999 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Management viz., M/s.Autofin Limited, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour as an authority under Section 20 (2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 2. The second respondent - Assistant Labour Officer has filed a claim before the first respondent authority claiming an amount of Rs.87,054.50 Ps. 3. The petitioner management has filed counter-affidavit on 21-06- 1997 in which it was sated that 50% of VDA was already paid and for remaining 50% there was an agreement by management with the union to pay the same in five instalments up to 05-11-1997. The Tribunal, mainly on the ground that by the date of inspection 50% amount was withheld, has passed the impugned award by allowing for payment of one time compensation, equivalent to the claim i.e., Rs.87,054.50 Ps. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and no representation on behalf of the respondents. 5. In this case it is to be noted that the impugned order was passed mainly on the ground that non-payment of 50% had come to light only due to inspection and had it not been detected, the management would have avoided for payment of VDA by causing delay. The said finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the defence of the petitioner management. The agreement entered into is not in dispute and 50% VDA, which was claimed by the second respondent, was already paid by the time the impugned order is passed. It was stated that the last instalment was paid in the month of November, 1997. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal erred in awarding one time compensation, only on the ground that there was an attempt to avoid the payment of VDA by causing delay. As much as 50% VDA was already paid by the date of inspection and remaining 50% VDA, in terms of G.O. Ms. No.18, dated 28-01-1992 and G.O. Ms. No.33, dated 22-04-1991, was paid even before passing of the impugned order, it is not a case to award any compensation on the claim of the second respondent. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge dated 20-12- 1998 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 27th February, 2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12270 of 1999 Between: M/s.Autofin Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Sri Gautamchand Jain, R/o.140, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad- 500 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Authority Under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Waged Act & Dy.Commissioner of Labour, Twin Cities, T.Anjaiah Bhavan, R.T.C.Cross Roads, Hyderabad. 2 Asst Labour Officer, Circle-22,T.Anjaiah Bhavan, R.T.C.Cross Roads, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 1st Respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the order passed by the 1st Respondent in M.W.No.2 of 1997 dated 20-12-1998 and the said order was communicated and received by the petitioner on 2-6-1999, declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law in violative of Principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction; and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following :