Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. A challenge is made to the order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The respondent Workman has been allowed wages even for the period when he was not in service. The respondent workman was dis -continued from service w.e.f. 10.02.2006, the Authority yet allowed the wages for the period started from 25.6.2005 till 10.6.2006 ignoring the fact that respondent was not in employment after 10.2.2006. The award of compensation of the matching amount to the minimum wages is also excessive.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submit that the impugned order for grant of wages after 10.2.2006 and even for past period is not justified as the application was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The delay in Filing application should not have been resulted grant of excessive compensation. Accordingly, the impugned order should not be allowed to stand with the same direction rather it may be modified. In my opinion, respondent employee is entitled to difference of amount of minimum wages w.e.f. 25.6.2005 till 9.2.2006 only and compensation of 10% on the amount so determined based on the direction above. The direction aforesaid is given in view of the fact that respondent -employee is entitled to the minimum wages only for the period he was in service and application was within limitation. The compensation that has been also restricted to the extent of 10% due to delay in approaching authority and seems to be justified compensation. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition so as the application for vacation of ex -parte stay order and the stay application are disposed of. The petitioner may comply with the order modified herein above.;