ORDER : The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an order, direction or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the appointment of the 2nd Respondent is below the rank of State Labour Commissioner and contrary to the provision of Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act consequently the order of the 2nd Respondent in 01/2016, dated : 30.10.2019 is without jurisdiction arbitrary, illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice and enforceable in law and grant such other relief or reliefs ….”. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, petitioner is a partnership firm dealing with sale of bearings and tools. Respondent No.3 was employed in the shop and he retired from service of the petitioner shop on 11.11.2011. Respondent No.3’s account was settled with the petitioner and he is receiving pension from the Employees Provident Fund Organization as per the EPF Scheme, 1952. 3. Respondent No.3 got issued a legal notice, dated 10.02.2016 claiming Rs.5,44,945/- alleging that his services were terminated by oral statement and petitioner stopped payment of wages after September, 2015. Reply notice was sent on behalf of petitioner to respondent No.3’s counsel denying various allegations made by respondent No.3 and further contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to respondent No.3. It was also asserted that Respondent No.3 retired from the service of the petitioner on 11.11.2011 and thereafter he was not employed by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 has been drawing pension from EPF organization ever since he retired from the service. Respondent No.3 provided consultancy service to the petitioner after his retirement and there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 subsequent to his retirement. 4. Respondent No.3 filed application before respondent No.2 along with petition in M.P.No.1 of 2016 to condone the delay of 23 months in filing the MW case. Petitioner filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner also contended in the said counter that each day’s delay of 690 days was not explained. Petitioner filed counter contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner also contended in the said counter that each day’s delay of 690 days was not explained. Respondent No.2 by order, dated 03.10.2016 allowed M.P.No.1 of 2016 by condoning the delay and respondent No.2 without having jurisdiction passed the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.1,36,368/-, which is two times the compensation, only basing on presumptions and assumptions and thus, filed the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended interalia that 2nd respondent is competent authority to adjudicate upon the claims filed under Section 20 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). As per Section 20 of the Act, respondent No.2 has power to condone the delay in filing claim application when sufficient cause is shown beyond the stipulated period. Respondent No.2 is the competent authority to adjudicate upon the Claims filed under Section 20 of the Act and also in view of G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 06.06.2008, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, notifying respondent No.2 as the Competent Authority to adjudicate upon the Claims filed under Section 20 of the Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard Sri Koka Satayanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. Learned counsel while reiterating the contentions in the writ affidavit, submits that respondent No.3 retired from service and he is getting pension from EPF organization; that he was engaged as an advisor on Honorarium basis but not on salary base and the said contract is an oral one and later filed complaint under Section 20 of the Act. 8. 7. Learned counsel while reiterating the contentions in the writ affidavit, submits that respondent No.3 retired from service and he is getting pension from EPF organization; that he was engaged as an advisor on Honorarium basis but not on salary base and the said contract is an oral one and later filed complaint under Section 20 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that as per Section 20 of the Act, the appropriate Government has to appoint any Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation or any officer of the Central Government functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of the payment of less than minimum rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or Clause (c) of 13(1) or of wages at the overtime rate under Section 14 to Employees employed or paid in that area. Thus he would contend that the authority, who decided the case is not competent to adjudicate the issue. 9. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction or authority to decide the issue relating to the status of respondent No.3 in the petitioner establishment. respondent No.3 offered himself to provide consultancy to the petitioner and he never worked as an employee, as such there is no Master and Servant relationship. He further submits that respondent No.3 is not an employee as per Section 2(i) of the Act. He submits that in similar circumstances, this Court has quashed orders and he placed reliance on B. Ramdas v. The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Guntur Region Guntur (Andhra Pradesh), 1987 (2) APLJ 137 ; Premier Tobacco Packers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Labour Officer (Andhra Pradesh), 1988 (1) LLN 743. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Parameswaran v. Authority, M.W. Act (Patel J.), 1970 Lab. I.C. 315 and submits that due to the delay or laches on the part of respondent No.3 petitioner cannot be made to pay penalty. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Parameswaran v. Authority, M.W. Act (Patel J.), 1970 Lab. I.C. 315 and submits that due to the delay or laches on the part of respondent No.3 petitioner cannot be made to pay penalty. 11. Learned Government Pleader placed before this Court, copies of G.O.Ms.No.38 and G.O.Ms.51 and would submit that column No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.38 specifies jurisdiction and in view of the said Government Orders, respondent No.2 is the competent authority. Hence, he would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 20 of the Act, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam i.e. respondent No.2, is not competent authority to decide the issue. In this regard, G.O.Ms.No.38, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab.IV) Department, dated 06.06.2008 issued by Principal Secretary of Government appointing officers in the Labour Department as Commissioners under Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is placed before this Court. As per the schedule to said G.O., officers in Labour Department, as shown in column No.2, were appointed to act as the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act for the areas specified in column No.3. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhpatnam, is appointed as Commissioner in respect of Visakhapatnam District. Thus, 2nd respondent is competent authority to adjudicate the dispute. 13. Subsequently, by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.51 Labour, Employment Training and Factories (Lab.IV) Department, dated 29.10.2013, pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the claims is being amended. As per said G.O., Assistant Commissioner of Labour shall take up the claims up to Rs.50,000/-. Beyond/exceeding Rs.50,000/- and up to Rs.2,00,000/- claim shall be entertained by Deputy Commissioner of Labour and in respect of the claims above Rs.2,00,000/-, it shall be taken up by Joint Commissioner of Labour. 14. In the case on hand, an application under Section 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act filed before Deputy Commissioner is for compensation of Rs.68,144/-. Hence, respondent No.2 is having jurisdiction and it is competent to deal with the claim of respondent No.3. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute falls to ground. 15. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that any claim under the Act has to be made before the competent authority within six months. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute falls to ground. 15. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that any claim under the Act has to be made before the competent authority within six months. It is apt to extract Section 20 of the Act. 16. Section 20 of the Act reads thus : 20. Claims. — (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint [any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any] other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages [or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under section 14,] to employees employed or paid in that area. (2) [Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1)], the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under sub-section (3): Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages [or other amount] became payable: Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. [(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct— (i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess; (ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees, and the Authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application.] …..” 17. In the present case, according to the petitioner, respondent No.3 retired from the service on 11.11.2011. However, in the year, 2016 he made claim for difference of minimum wages of Rs.68,184/- along with compensation for the period from 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2016, though there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 during that period. Whereas according to respondent No.3, to meet some exigencies, he required money in 2011, as such he requested the petitioner to retire him and pay the terminal benefits and the petitioner though signed PF papers, did not retire respondent No.3 and continued him in service beyond 2011 till September, 2015. 18. In this regard, respondent No.2 after considering the evidence on record observed that the petitioner himself, in his evidence admitted that the applicant was continued as an adviser in his shop after his retirement and held that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the petitioner and respondent No.3 even after 2011 and on the basis of Ex.A1 respondent No.2 concluded that services of respondent No.3 were utilized as sales incharge even after the retirement of the respondent No.3 until 30.09.2015. 19. 19. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder : “As stated above in issue No.1 none of the social enactment prevents any employee from employment in any establishment after retirement, whether private or public, if he is capable enough to perform the duties entrusted to him. Thus, though the applicant retired as per the statute of Provident Fund Act to claim his final withdrawal it cannot become an obstacle for the applicant to continue his employer with the OP and it is always on the part of the employer/OP to see whether the employee who has attained the age of 60 years or retired from service can serve the purpose of his establishment if he is continued beyond the period of 60 years or retirement. Hence, when once a retired person was continued to work in the establishment the Minimum Wages Act doesn’t allow the employer either to truncate or to pay lesser than the Minimum rates of wages fixed or revised for the category of work entrusted to such worker if he is working normal working hours. The OP failed to produce any statutory record viz. wages register and Muster roll in contrary to it and instead admitted in his cross that he did not know whether any such registers were being maintained in Visakhapatnam shop and added that he could not present those records at that time, which means that he has invariably committed violation of the provisions of the said Act and rules thereunder for his employees and under these circumstances there stood nothing to disbelieve the version of the applicant that he had worked normal working hours in the establishment of the OP as a sales in-charge. In view of the above discussion it is proved that the applicant had continued until 30.09.2015 having as usual working hours as was having earlier to his retirement and in the absence of any impediment under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the entire period of work after 11.11.2011 to 30.09.2015 should invariably construed to be his extended service as a sales in-charge and as per the decision of the Honourable Apex case in “Palideve & Others” above he is entitle to claim the lesser extent of Minimum rates of wages under Section 30 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which is answered in favour of the applicant. 20. 20. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 is not entitled for the claim amount as he retired from the service in the year, 2011 itself, falls to ground. 21. The decision reported in B. Ramdas v. The Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Guntur Region Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the present case as the authorities therein failed to give an opportunity to the petitioner therein to lead evidence in rebuttal, whereas in the present case the evidence of RW1 was recorded by the authority. 22. In Premier Tobacco Packers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Labour Officer (Andhra Pradesh), this Court upheld the order of Labour Officer holding that it is not possible to uphold orders imposing enormous pecuniary liabilities merely on the basis of suspicion, without there being corroborative evidence. The facts of the said case are not applicable to the present case as petitioner was given fair opportunity. 23. The Authority after discussing the issues involved in the matter held that respondent No.3 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.68,184/- for the period from 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2015 and awarded two times of compensation amounting to Rs.68,184/- x 2 = 1,36,368/-. The total compensation awarded to respondent No.3 is Rs.68,184/- + Rs.1,36,368/- = Rs.2,04,552/-. 24. Awarding of compensation should not be excessive. respondent No.3 filed application with a delay of 23 months. Person approaching authority belatedly is not entitled to compensation at multiple times. To balance interest of both the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the compensation by limiting the compensation by one time instead of two times. 25. Thus, respondent No.3 is entitled to compensation of ‘Rs.68,148/- x 1’. Petitioner shall pay one time of compensation and thus, the total amount liable to be paid by the petitioner comes to Rs.1,36,368/- (Rs.68,148/- + Rs.68,148/- x 1). 26. This Court by order, dated 03.02.2021, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay for a period of four weeks on the condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.40,000/- before the Minimum Wages Authority within a period of three weeks. In compliance of the said order, petitioner deposited Rs.40,000/- by way of D.D.No.743747, dated 20.02.2021 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner filed copy of said demand draft along with memo. In compliance of the said order, petitioner deposited Rs.40,000/- by way of D.D.No.743747, dated 20.02.2021 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner filed copy of said demand draft along with memo. Petitioner shall deposit the balance amount before Minimum Wages Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 27. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.