JUDGMENT : TARUN AGARWALA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.K. Sinha, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the order passed by the payment of wages authority under the Payment of Wages Act whereby a sum of Rs.42,626.27 along with compensation amounting to Rs.2,13,131.33 and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.200/- has been levied upon the petitioner for non-payment of the wages of the workman concerned for the period November, 2008 to November, 2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the wages to the workman was due and payable but for reasons beyond their control, the amount could not be paid. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the wages payable to the workman for the period November, 2008 to November, 2009 was due and payable which the employers failed to pay. Consequently, the Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order awarding back wages. However, the award of compensation appears to be excessive. 4. The learned counsel for the parties agree that compensation awarded may be suitably modified as per the discretion of the Court. 5. Considering the aforesaid and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court hereby modifies the order of the prescribed authority to the extent that all amounts adjudicated would be paid by the petitioner to the workman concerned except that the compensation of Rs.2,13,131.33 would be reduced to the amount equivalent to the wages calculated by the authority i.e., Rs.42,626.77. The aforesaid amounts along with cost would shall be paid to the petitioner within three weeks from today, failing which it would be open to the respondents to recover the entire amount as per the order of the prescribed authority dated 1.12.2012. The writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid.