HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1243 OF 2004 DATED 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. BETWEEN First Flight Couriers Ltd, 55, Nehru Street, Tirupathi, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director …Petitioner And The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 And Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi, and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1243 OF 2004 ORDER: The order dated 28.11.2003 of the Authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, passed in M.W. Case No. 4 of 2003 is challenged by the Opposite Party therein viz., the employer. The petitioner is an establishment covered under the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, and is statutorily bound to pay minimum wages to its employees. While so, the Assistant Labour Oﬃcer, Tirupathi conducted an inspection of the petitioner establishment on 20.09.2001 and detected under payment of wages to the tune of 38,295/- to twelve employees. He therefore ﬁled a petition before the Authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which was taken on file as M.W.Case No. 4 of 2003. The petitioner, being the Opposite Party in the said case, admittedly paid the shortfall in the minimum wages on 29.1.2002 and ﬁled copies of the vouchers in evidence there of. Exercising its discretion under the statute, the Authority passed a docket order directing the petitioner/Opposite Party to pay a one-time compensation by way of National Saving Certiﬁcates obtained in the name of the workmen for a sum of Rs.38,295/- and to submit the same before it for further action. However, inspite of obtaining several adjournments on this account, the petitioner/Opposite Party failed to comply with the direction. Having no other option, the Authority passed the impugned order dated 28.1.2003 directing the petitioner/Opposite Party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.38,295/- to the twelve workers concerned. The payment was directed to be made within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition was filed. By order dated 23.1.2004 this Court while granting interim suspension, directed the petitioner to deposit half of the amount payable under the impugned order and granted liberty to the twelve employees concerned to withdraw the same without furnishing security. Sri S. Ravindhranath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, stressed upon the fact that the Assistant Labour Oﬃcer, Tirupathi, in his application before the Authority did not seek payment of compensation as the column pertaining to payment of compensation was left blank. The learned Counsel therefore contended that in such a situation, the Authority ought not to have directed payment of compensation; all the more so, as the petitioner had already made the payment of the shortfall in the minimum wages due during the pendency of the case before the Authority. It is however to be noticed that under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Authority under the Act is vested with the discretion, once it ﬁnds that minimum wages were not paid to not only direct payment of penalty but also compensation as it may think ﬁt. The only embargo is that such compensation should not exceed ten times the amount of the short fall in the payment of minimum wages. The provision also makes it clear that such compensation can be directed to be paid even in cases where the minimum wages payable have been paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the case. It is no doubt true that in the present case the amount payable towards the short fall in the minimum wages of the twelve employees was paid by the petitioner on 29.1.2002, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Authority. However, as stipulated in the statutory provision, the same would not bar or dilute the discretion of the Authority in directing payment of compensation. Further, the facts on record establish that the petitioner, having suﬀered the docket order for payment of compensation, took innumerable adjournments to comply with the said direction but failed to do so. Keeping in mind the fact that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is a welfare legislation for the amelioration of employees, the discretion exercised by the Authority under the said Act, in directing payment of compensation, is not open to interference unless the same is exercised injudiciously or capriciously. The case on hand does not reﬂect any such irregular exercise of discretion by the Authority. The Writ Petition is therefore found to be lacking in merit and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall make the payment of the balance amount due and payable under the impugned order dated 28.1.2003 passed in M.W.Case No. 04 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment, the said amount shall be disbursed to the twelve employees concerned in accordance with law. No costs. ------------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010. Msnr.