ORDER : The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in M.W.Case No.4 of 2010 dated 08.05.2013, and set aside the said orders and direct the respondents not to collect any amounts from the petitioner under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act pursuant to the application made by the 2nd respondent and pass…” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a large Indian retailer and operated multiple retail formats in both the value and lifestyle segment of the Indian consumer market, having over 1,000 stores across 71 cities in India and he employs over 30,000 people, and is the country’s largest listed retailer by market capitalization and revenue. While the matter being so, the 2nd respondent, through respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, had conducted an inspection of the establishment of the petitioner in Visakhapatnam on 07.01.2010 and on such inspection, the 2nd respondent had filed a case before the 1st respondent, stating that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 noticed that some of the employees of the petitioner were found to be not being paid the minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and as well as G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 07.12.2007. As a notice was issued to the petitioner dated 20.02.2010, he had appeared before the 1st respondent and clarified that the employees are being paid the minimum wages strictly in accordance with the provisions of rules stipulated by the labour department. 3. The petitioner, has submitted that the designation of “team member” attributed to its employees is within the meaning of “helper”/“shop boy” and further contended that there is no necessity for the petitioner to appoint sales person in their establishment as certain workers, namely, team members/helpers/shop boys are employed by the petitioner to help the customers in finding or picking up the products available in the establishment of the petitioner, who cannot be called as Salesman. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without considering the facts submitted above, categorized certain employees of the petitioner’s establishment as “sales person”. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without considering the facts submitted above, categorized certain employees of the petitioner’s establishment as “sales person”. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the employees in his establishment do not perform the role of a salesman as they do not try to explain the benefits of any products but they perform the job of maintenance of hygiene in the petitioner’s establishment, displaying and restocking goods/products in the shelves of the petitioner’s establishment. The main contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, without considering the nature of work of the employees working in the petitioner’s establishment, had issued an order dated 08.05.2013, wherein the petitioner was asked to pay a total sum of Rs.5,44,806 (towards difference of wages: Rs.90,801 + five times compensation: Rs.4,54,005). 5. When the matter was taken up for admission on 10.06.2013, this Court granted an interim order as follows: “…there shall be interim suspension of order dated 08.05.2013 in M.W.Case No.4 f 2010, subject to the petitioner depositing with respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.90,000/-(rupees ninety thousand only) within four weeks from today. The amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the workers, which shall be subject to the result of the writ petition…” 6. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already deposited difference of wages as ordered by the 1st respondent to a tune of Rs.90,801/- before the Court below, but however, disputed the award of five times compensation of Rs.4,54,005/-. And further stated that the employees were designated as team members, which is equivalent to the category of helper. But they cannot be treated as sales men as concluded by the 1st respondent. The petitioner adduced evidence before the Court below to establish the fact that the employees were designated as helpers but not as salesmen as it is a super market and also adduced evidence to the extent that some of the items in the said petitioner’s shop consist packets and some of them available without packing. The petitioner adduced evidence before the Court below to establish the fact that the employees were designated as helpers but not as salesmen as it is a super market and also adduced evidence to the extent that some of the items in the said petitioner’s shop consist packets and some of them available without packing. It was further stated that the packets consist of date of packing, weight, price etc., and he accepted the suggestion that the customers can pick up the items as per their choice and the staff of the establishment must assist the customers for their purchases and further denied the suggestion that the persons who are working in the establishment are not salesmen and they are only helpers. 7. With regard to the imposition of five (5) times compensation on the petitioner organization, it is relevant to refer to Section 20, Clause 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which reads as follows: “[(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give 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.]” As per Clause (3)(i) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the authority can impose a compensation not exceeding ten (10) times the amount. 8. It is also relevant to refer to the definition of “Salesman”, which reads as follows: “A salesman is a man whose job is to sell products or services. 8. It is also relevant to refer to the definition of “Salesman”, which reads as follows: “A salesman is a man whose job is to sell products or services. A salesman can sell directly to customers or to other businesses or organizations. Sometimes, salesmen sell things in person, such as at a retail store or dealership. They also commonly sell things over the phone or by communicating with people online. In the past, it was common for some salesmen to travel door-to-door to make sales to people at home, leading to the term door-to-door salesman.” 9. In view of the same, it is clear that the employees working in the petitioner’s establishment cannot be called as salesman as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as they do not fall under the definition of salesman as discussed above. It is also an admitted fact that the employees working in the super market only assist the customers for their purchases, but, do not sell the products. 10. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the 1st respondent in M.W.04 of 2010 is modified by setting aside the 5 times compensation of Rs.4,54,005/-. As the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs.90,801/- towards the difference of wages before the 1st respondent-Joint Commissioner of Labour, the 22 workmen named in the order passed by the 1st respondent are at liberty to withdraw the said amounts deposited before the 1st respondent. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.