- (1.) The workmen have filed this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 25.7.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order passed by the Prescribed Authority only to the extent of imposing compensation has been set aside and the management (respondent No. 1 herein) has been directed to pay the difference of wages to five workmen, as determined by the Prescribed Authority. In this case, the difference of wages, which the management was held liable to pay to five workmen, was only Rs. 6,828.50. The said difference was on account of less payment of wages paid to the workmen during their training period. It was held that during the training, the trainee cannot be paid less than the minimum wages prescribed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the management contested that as per the appointment letters, the trainees were being paid stipend during their training period. The workmen raised the dispute at a belated stage and on determination of the difference of wages, the same was paid by the management long ago. However, while allowing the application of the workmen, the Appropriate Authority under the Act imposed compensation on the management to the extent of eight times of the amount of difference of wages under section 20(3) of the Act, on the ground that the management had un-necessarily dragged the workmen before the Authority on technical pleas. While noticing all these facts, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification for imposing the said excessive compensation on the management. The writ petition of the management was partly allowed, setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority qua the awarding of compensation of Rs. 54,626/-. It was found that in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the management has unnecessarily contested the claim of the workmen. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the appellants-workmen could not explain as to how the objection raised by the management to the claim raised by the workmen was unjustified and unreasonable. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, particularly the fact that the amount of difference of wages has been paid to the workmen long ago, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed.;