HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.2239 of 2008 (M/S) Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Through its Regional Manger Head Office at 117 Indira Nagar District Dehradun … Petitioner Versus Matvar Singh Pundir and another … Respondents Dated:- 13th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. C. Pant, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. The petitioner is the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and is assailing the validity and legality of the order dated 11th November, 2008 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dehradun under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The workman Matvar Singh Pundir is still working as a Security Guard on a consolidated pay of Rs.1400/- per month and filed an application under Section 20 (3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner alleging therein that he is required to be paid the minimum wages as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period July, 2002 to February, 2005. The employer entered appearance and denied the claim of the workman alleging that he was appointed on a consolidated pay and was not a regular employee of the Corporation and, therefore, the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act was not required to be paid. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, after considering the matter, allowed the claim and directed the Corporation petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,295/- to the workman towards the arrears of wages and also imposed compensation, which was twice the amount of arrears i.e. 2 Rs.50,590/- The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner to the effect that the Minimum Wages Act will is not applicable to a person who is appointed on a consolidated amount, is patently erroneous. Even a contract worker is required to be paid the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. A person who is working in some capacity in a public sector and even who is not a regular workman is still required to be paid the minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. The consolidated wages cannot be less than the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. In view of the aforesaid, the authority was justified in calculating the arrears as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act and, to that stand, the order for arrears of wages of Rs.25,295/-/- does not suffer from any error of law. However, the Court finds that the order of imposition of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,590/- is patently arbitrary. Quite apart from the fact that it is also excessive, there is no finding that the petitioner was adopting an unfair labour practice and was deliberately paying a consolidated wages. However, the petitioner’s stand that the Minimum Wages Act was not applicable to persons employed on consolidated wages had already been rejected in the preceding paragraph. The court finds that there was no unfair labour practice adopted on the part of the employer in paying less than the minimum wages. The payment of compensation is not granted as a matter of rule. This discretion must be exercised judiciously. In my opinion, the direction for payment of compensation was not justified. The court further finds that the petitioner’s application for payment of wages as per the Minimum Wages Act for the period February, 2002 to June, 2002 was also allowed by the authority under 3 the Payment of Wages Act, which amount has already been paid to the workman. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is partly allowed. The order for payment of arrears of wages amounting to Rs25,295/- is affirmed. The petitioner is directed to pay this amount to the workman within four weeks from today. The order for payment of Rs.50,590/- towards the compensation is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the workman will also be entitled for cost, which the court computes at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousands) and would be paid by the employer within the same period. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.05.2010 LSR