Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1169 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Duda Ram S/o Joga Ram

2023-05-25

ARUN BHANSALI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2023
ORDER : 1. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 03.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellant-State against the orders dated 25.02.2014/27.05.2016 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act (‘the Authority’), have been dismissed. 2. The respondents – employees approached the Authority alleging payment less than the minimum wages by the Assistant Engineer, PHED, Pachpadra Balotra, District Barmer, Rajasthan for the services rendered by them while working under the employment and direction of various Panchayat Samitis in relation to the tube-wells, repairing of the pipelines and maintaining water supply at the villages. 3. Allegations were made that they were being paid Rs.500/-per month instead of Rs.73/-per day as the minimum wages and, therefore, they were entitled to the payment of difference in the amount paid and minimum wages along with compensation ten times the amount of difference. 4. The plea was contested by the appellant -State on various grounds. The Authority, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the payment, less than the minimum wages, was not justified and consequently awarded the difference between the amount paid and the minimum wages along with compensation equal to the amount of difference. 5. The State filed writ petitions challenging the orders dated 25.02.2014/27.05.2016 passed by the Authority. It was inter-alia claimed that the responsibility, if any, of making payment was that of various Gram Panchayat/s and not of the State and that the order passed by the Authority ordering for payment of compensation in the circumstances of the case was not justified. 6. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the issue raised by the State in the writ petition was squarely covered by decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Superintending Engineer, PHED, Sikar & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Rai & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.11355/2013) decided on 21.09.2016 and judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2017) decided on 13.07.2017 as upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.247/2013 – State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Nemi Chand & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Rai & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.11355/2013) decided on 21.09.2016 and judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2017) decided on 13.07.2017 as upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.247/2013 – State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Nemi Chand & Ors. decided on 24.08.2017 and came to the conclusion that as the issue raised was squarely covered by the said judgments, there was no merit in the writ petitions and after reproducing the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the writ petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the rejection of the writ petitions filed by the State, by learned Single Judge in the circumstances of the case is not justified, inasmuch as, the plea raised by the appellants-petitioners, regarding inapplicability of the judgment in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra) was not considered. 8. Further submissions have been made that during pendency of the writ petitions, the amount of difference, as ordered by the authority, has already been paid to the respondents-workmen. However, the issue pertaining to award of compensation is still pending. It was submitted that the award of compensation in the present case was not justified and that the authority has not recorded any reasons for awarding the compensation and, therefore, the award of compensation deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-employees made submissions that the issue raised in the present appeals is squarely covered by the order in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra), as the only plea raised by the State was regarding its liability to make the payment of minimum wages, as the State tried to shift the liability on various Gram Panchayats, which aspect was exhaustively dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to another Scheme i.e. the Gramin Janta Jal Yojana, which was squarely applicable to the present case. 10. Further submissions have been made that under the provisions of Section 20(3)(i) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (‘the Act’), the Authority can award compensation upto ten times of the amount of difference. However, only compensation equal to the amount of difference has been awarded, which does not call for any interference. As such the appeals deserve dismissal. 11. We have considered the submissions made. 12. However, only compensation equal to the amount of difference has been awarded, which does not call for any interference. As such the appeals deserve dismissal. 11. We have considered the submissions made. 12. Though the appeals are barred by limitation, in view of the facts that in one case i.e. SAW No.899/2022, notices have been served and learned counsel has put in appearance and the matter has been heard on merits, all the appeals, as they arise from the same impugned judgment, are being decided together, the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 13. The appellants have raised two issues i.e. the purported non-applicability of judgment in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra) to the facts of the present cases and award of compensation by the Authority. 14. It would be appropriate to quote the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Rai (supra), which reads as under:-“The challenge in this group of appeals is against a common order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State sought to challenge an order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court upholding the order of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act by which the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State and the concerned Gram Panchayat has been made jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due to the concerned employees (Pump Operators) as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Scheme-Gramin Janta Jal Yojna under which the respondents were appointed was floated by the State Government and the implementation thereof was entrusted to the concerned Gram Panchayat. Under the Scheme, according to the appellant, contribution of funds to be provided by the State for the employees is only Rs.500/-per month and the rest of the expenditure is to be borne by the Gram Panchayat(s). It is on the aforesaid basis that the order granting minimum wage holding the Department jointly and severally liable to pay the minimum wages has been challenged. The Scheme in question was introduced and implemented for ensuring safe drinking water for the residents of the concerned villages. It is on the aforesaid basis that the order granting minimum wage holding the Department jointly and severally liable to pay the minimum wages has been challenged. The Scheme in question was introduced and implemented for ensuring safe drinking water for the residents of the concerned villages. The Scheme itself was floated by the Government and the funds for implementation of the Scheme are to be paid by the State Government. If that be so, it is difficult to understand as to why the State alongwith Gram Panchayat cannot be held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. It at all such a situation, namely, the question of apportionment of funds arise, the same can also be dealt with by suitable adjustments made in the amounts allocated/to be allocated by the State to the Panchayats. However, that would not be a sufficient basis to find fault with the order of the primary authority or in the order of learned Single Judge which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. We, therefore, find no merit in any of these appeals. The appeals filed by the State are consequently dismissed.” 15. Perusal of the above would reveal that the issue, which was raised before Hon’ble Supreme Court, pertained to the same PHED Department and its liability to pay the minimum wages in relation to the schemes, which were floated by the State and implemented by the Gram Panchayats and part of the fixed payment was being made by the Gram Panchayat/s to the employees and the challenge was laid to the liability imposed on the State for payment of the difference between the amount paid and the minimum wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the question of apportionment of funds can be dealt with between the State and the Panchayat Samiti(s) and so far as, the order of payment passed by the authority against the State was concerned, the same did not call for any interference and consequently upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court. 16. 16. In the present cases also, irrespective of the fact that the engagement in question is not in Gramin Janta Jal Yojana and the same is under a different scheme, the plea raised is similar i.e. whether the PHED is responsible for making payment based on the order passed by the Authority and that the liability is solely that of the Gram Panchayats and as such, the issue has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge to be covered by judgment in the case of Prahlad Rai(supra). 17. Besides the above, insofar as the payment of difference between the minimum wages and the amount paid is concerned, the same has already been paid by the appellant-State to the respondents and as such even otherwise, the plea raised in this regard is academic only. 18. Coming to the issue of award of compensation by the Authority equal to the amount of difference between the minimum wages and the amount paid to the employees, the provisions of Section 20(3)(i) of the Act, inter-alia, reads as under:- “(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or given 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.” 19. A bare perusal of the above provision reveals that the Authority under the Act has the jurisdiction to direct, payment of compensation, as it think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of excess i.e. the difference between the minimum wages and the actual payment made. 20. The fact that the authority has been conferred with the jurisdiction to award compensation to the extent of ten times the amount of excess, the jurisdiction has to be exercised by the authority judiciously and the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 21. 20. The fact that the authority has been conferred with the jurisdiction to award compensation to the extent of ten times the amount of excess, the jurisdiction has to be exercised by the authority judiciously and the same cannot be exercised arbitrarily. 21. Looking to the nature of the cases, it is not in dispute that the minimum wages at the relevant time was Rs.73/-per day. However, the employees, were being paid Rs.500/-per month and the difference for the period from January, 2007 to October, 2007, for which the claim was made before the Authority, came to about Rs.18,400/-per employee, the claim was made in the year 2007 itself and the matter remained pending before the authority for over 9 years, when the order was passed for making payment of difference between the minimum wages and actual amount paid and, therefore, apparently the award of compensation to the extent of one time/equal to the amount of excess in under no circumstance can be said to be arbitrary on part of the Authority. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prerna Sahygo Vs. Authority under Minimum Wages & Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 247 , in a case where the authority had directed payment of eight times wages to the workmen as compensation, who were not paid the minimum wages came to the following conclusion:- “We do not agree that no interference with the award of the authority was called for. It was called for in the matter of the compensation awarded. Rather than remitting the matter to the High Court, we have heard learned counsel. We are satisfied that the award of compensation is exorbitant. We think, in the circumstances, that the amount of the compensation should be equivalent to the amount of the wages. In other words, each of the workers shall get as compensation an amount equal to the amount of wages awarded to him. The order of the Authority dated 30.12.1997 shall stand modified to this extent only. The appeal is allowed to this extent. No order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied) 23. The award of compensation, to the extent of one time/equal to the amount of excess, apparently is the minimum compensation, which the Authority could have awarded and, therefore, the compensation awarded does not require any interference. 24. Consequently, there is no force in the appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.