- (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('the Act of 1948' for brevity).
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948 stating that the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur in its award dated 26th April, 2001 passed in case L.C.R. No. 309/95 directed the petitioner herein, the Gram Panchayat, Choth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur (hereinafater 'the Employer') to reinstate the respondent no.2 (hereinafter to be referred as workman). It was stated that even though the workman was reinstated on 1st July, 2001, yet he was not being paid minimum wages but only a consolidated sum of Rs. 650/- per month was paid in contravention of the Act of 1948. It was prayed that for the period of May, 2006 to August, 2006, the Employer be directed to pay Rs. 4488/- arrears computed on basis of wages paid and minimum wages due. On notice of the application under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948, a reply came to be filed by the employer Gram Panchayat. It was admitted in the reply that the workman was paid a sum of Rs. 650/- per month on his reinstatement as contracted and no protest has been made by the workman with regard to amount paid to him. In his evidence, the workman stated that as against his salary as a skilled worker i.e. Rs. 2106 per month, he was being paid only Rs. 650/- per month and as such, for the period 1st May, 2006 to 2nd August, 2006 he had been under paid a sum of Rs. 4488/-. It was stated by the workman that he was fully employed by the employer for the whole duration of each working day in the Gram Panchayat and was required to carry out various functions such as inspection of sites, collection of taxes, maintenance of ration cards and other miscellaneous works, which was assigned to him from to time. In rebuttal, the employer denied the workman's case and reiterated that he had accepted re-employment following the award of the labour court at Rs. 650/- per month as was reflected in the letter of appointment issued to him. On the consideration of the workman's case and defence of the employer Gram Panchayat as also supporting evidence, the Competent Authority under the Act of 1948 came to a conclusion that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were applicable to the local authorities including Panchayat. It held that the work assigned to the workman entitled him to be categorized as a skilled worker and consequently, the workman was entitled to minimum wages @ Rs. 73 per day as then paid, multiplied by 26 working days per month resulting in a salary of Rs. 1,898 per month, while he was paid only Rs. 650/- per month by the Gram Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was directed that the workman be paid the differential amount of wages short paid to him with reference to his entitlement of Rs. 1898 per month as minimum wages, under the Act of 1948 i.e. Rs. 3890/- for the period indicated in the application under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948. Further resorting to Section 20(3)(i) of the Act of 1948, the competent authority also held the workman entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 19,450/- 5 times of short paid wages aggregating to Rs. 3,890/-. Consequently, it was directed that workman was entitled to payment of Rs.21,340/- in the aggregate. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is an order based on findings of fact. The Authority has come to a conclusion on evidence before it that against entitlement on Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as a skilled worker, to a sum of Rs. 1898/- per month, the workman was wrongly paid @ Rs. 650/- only per month. The imposition of penalty levied by the Competent Authority relates to power under Section 20(3)(i) of the Act of 1948 conferred with the intent of ensuring that the provisions of the Act are adhered to. In my considered opinion, the order is well considered and reasoned order and there is no perversity or misdirection in law therein. The writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. ;