SBCWP4487/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4487/1997 Factory Manager, Rajasthan Textile Mills, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan Vs. The Labour Inspector, Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jhalawar and Others Date of Order ::: 06.05.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri J.K. Singhi with Shri Amitabh Jatav, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This petition has been filed by petitioner challenging – (1) claim petition dated 19.09.1987 filed by the respondent no.1, (2) order dated 26.02.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and, (3) order dated 11.03.1997 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Kota, rejecting the appeal filed by petitioner. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 26.02.1988 clearly held that despite increase of wages at the rate of Rs.57.50p., by the government notification dated 16.02.1987, the petitioner made such payment with the delay of 9 months and therefore the claim petition was disposed of requiring the petitioner to pay to each of the workmen a sum of Rs.20/- per SBCWP4487/1997 // 2 // employee. Thus a total loss of Rs.60360/- was ordered to be paid to the employees. The petitioner filed an appeal against said order before the District & Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.1997. Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that once it was clarified before the Prescribed Authority that the entire payment which was due in pursuance of the notification dated 16.02.1987 was made, there was no justification on the part of the prescribed authority to direct payment of compensation for delayed payment. Learned counsel submitted that there was as such no delay and such delay could not be said to be deliberate and because there was a bona-fide dispute between the parties as regards to the workload which was being renegotiated for all this time. Soon this issue was resolved the payment was made. It was argued that otherwise also principles of resjudicata and estoppel apply in the matter because when the payment was offered to the workmen and that was accepted without any prejudice and certificate was issued by respective Unions, no dispute remained left and the claim petition could not have been kept pending by the learned Prescribed Authority. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed writ petition and submitted that petitioner has not disputed liability to make enhanced payment of the wages. SBCWP4487/1997 // 3 // The petitioner has also not challenged validity of the notification dated 16.02.1987 by which the Government enhanced the wages of every workman at the rate of Rs.57.50p. The petitioner also has not disputed the fact that the payment was made with the delay of 9 months. Learned Prescribed Authority, taking note of all these facts, was fully justified in directing payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- to each of the workmen, whereas outer limit for such compensation is at the rate of Rs.25/- per workman. Learned counsel submitted that over payment could not be delayed under the garb of renegotiating workload because in the notification of the government dated 16.02.1987 increase in the payment of wages was not at the option of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that petitioner has indeed not questioned the Government notification dated 16.02.1987 and in fact acting on such notification it has paid amount to the workmen. The only controversy on that issue has been over by the petitioner since the workload was being renegotiated with the employees union, therefore, some delay was caused due to this bona- fide reason. In my view the learned Prescribed Authority rightly did not accept this justification for delaying the payment. The outer limit for such compensation is at the rate of Rs.25/- per workman. The learned Prescribed Authority in its discretion SBCWP4487/1997 // 4 // has somewhat reduced such payment to Rs.20/- because the petitioner on its own made payment to the workmen and then it found that the petitioner did not deliberately delay the payment of increased wages to the workmen for 9 months, and as per the statutory provisions the Prescribed Authority therefore acted within its jurisdiction in directing the petitioner to pay to each of the workmen compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per employee. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//