M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the award dated 20.12.2004 (Annexure P -l) passed by the authorities under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act'). The workman -respondent No. 2 has been awarded wages for the period of 1.5.2001 to 27.5.2001 and has also been award penalty equal to five times of the delayed wages amounting to Rs. 11,178/ -. The findings recorded by the authorities below reads thus: (a) The applicant during his cross -examination AW/02 has submitted that for the period of 1.6.2001 to 2.9.2001 he was employed at the office premises of the respondent No. 2 at Chandigarh. Therefore, we conclude that the claim petition for the period 1.6.2001 to 2.9.2001 is devoid of jurisdiction. (b) The respondent No. 2 vide written statement has admitted that employment of applicant for the period 7.3.2001 to 27.5.2001. The respondent No. 2 though produced the payment of Wages Register (photocopy) for the period April, 2001 showing payment of wages to the applicant Exhibit MA, but the applicant's wages for the period 1.5.2001 to 27.5.2001 remained unpaid.Thus, we conclude that the applicant is entitled to wages for the period 1.5.2001 to 27.5.2001, which works out to be Rs. 2,235/60 (Two thousand two hundred thirty five rupees and sixty paisa only). The applicant is also allowed compensation equal to five times of the delayed wages amounting to Rs. 11,178/ - (c) The respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 2,235.60 alongwith Rs. 11,178/ - compensation to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of this order. No order as to costs. (emphasis added)
(2.) WHEN the matter came up for consideration before us on 27.2.2008, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the amount awarded to the workman -respondent No. 2 shall be deposited. After the amount was deposited the same has been disbursed to the workman -respondent No. 2 subject to his furnishing adequate surety. Accordingly the amount stand paid to the workman -respondent No. 2. Mr. Munish Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to persuade us to accept his submission that the claim of the workman respondent No. 2 is covered by clause (ii) of Sub -section(3) of Section 20 of the Act and not by Clause (i) of Sub -section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. According to the learned Counsel the provision with regard to penalty exceeding 10 times the amount of arrears of wages would not be applicable to the case of workman -respondent No. 2.
(3.) MR . Gaurav Mohunta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has argued that once the petitioner -establishment has been found to be in arrears of payment of minimum wages then the provisions of Section 20(3)(i) of the Act would apply.;