HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25732 of 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in M.W.Nos.110 and 111 of 1999, the present Writ Petition is filed. The Assistant Labour Officer, Circle-II, Eluru received a complaint from two employees of the petitioner that they were paid less than minimum wages and that the petitioner had decided to terminate their services in view of the financial burden. Subsequently, complaints were also lodged by the Bharat National Trade Union Congress, vide letter dated 15.03.1999, regarding non-payment of minimum wages by the petitioner herein. An inspection was conducted on 24.02.1999 in the office of the petitioner. Eight employees were found working in the office and nine in the godown, including the two complainants. On interrogation, the workers stated that they were paid less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 06.03.1991. The workers further stated that, though they were paid less wages, their signatures were obtained by the petitioner as if minimum wages had been paid and, due to fear of removal, they had signed in the acquaintance register. A joint meeting was conducted wherein the petitioner stated that two employees were working in his establishment as trainees and that appointment letters were not issued to them out of ignorance. The petitioner agreed to pay the terminal benefits of Rs.7,000/- to Sri S.Srinivas and Rs.5,000/- to Sri P.Rajesh. The Minimum Wages Authority condoned the delay in filing the complaint. With regards non-payment of the minimum wages, the Minimum Wages Authority noted the admission of the petitioner that the workers were paid only Rs.400/- each in February, 1999; they were not given appointment orders; and that they were working for a long time. The Minimum Wages Authority noted the statement of the workers that, though they were paid less than minimum wages, they were forced to sign in the acquaintance register as if they were paid minimum wages. He observed that, while all the workers had specifically stated about the actual wages paid to them being below the minimum wages, no concrete evidence was let in by the petitioner to establish to the contrary. Difference in wages for the workmen was computed at Rs.1,41,634/- and penalty of twice the said amount of Rs.2,83,268/- was imposed. It was made clear that, in case, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount, the compensation would be enhanced to five times i.e. Rs.7,08,170/-. The only contention urged before this Court by Sri K.Chidambaram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that, since the records show that the workmen were paid more than the minimum wages, the burden was on the workmen to establish, by cogent evidence, that they were in fact paid less, and that their oral statements to the contrary did not merit acceptance. This contention is noted only to be rejected. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities/tribunals. This Court would not, in writ proceedings, substitute its views for that of the tribunal nor would it, as an appellate authority would, interfere merely because the alternative view canvassed is more appealing. It is only if there is no material on record, or if the findings recorded are perverse, would this Court be justified in interference. The Minimum Wages Authority has recorded its findings on the basis of the earlier statements of all the workmen. He has also relied on the admission of the petitioner that for the month of February, 1999, two of the workmen were paid only Rs.400/- per month and that no appointment orders were issued to the workmen concerned. Based on the overall evidence on record, the Minimum Wages Authority has accepted as true the statements of all the workmen. This finding does not suffer from perversity nor can it be said to be based on no evidence. The penalty imposed of twice the amount of the differential wages is also within the competence of the authority concerned. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order passed by the Minimum Wages Authority. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:23.09.2010 usd