Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Pal And Ors

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned petitions have been heard together, while treating W.P. (C) 5156/2018 as

lead matter, and all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

Impugned order of 17th April, 2018 (Annexure P-16) directs petitioner to pay the excess amount of the minimum wages vis-Ã -vis the State

Government and the Central Government Notification under Minimum Wages Act alongwith levy of compensation, which is two times the excess

amount payable. Impugned order takes note of Government of India’s Notification on 19th January, 2017 which provides for minimum wages,

which are higher than the minimum wages fixed by Government of NCT of Delhi, for the period from 19th January, 2017 till 2nd March, 2017 and

relies upon petitioner’s undertaking to pay the minimum wages as per Central Government’s Notification of 19th January, 2017 for the period

from 19th January, 2017 till 2nd March, 2017.

Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order of 17th April, 2018 as well as order of 9th January, 2018 passed by the Competent

Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on the ground that under some confusion, it was undertaken on behalf of petitioner to pay minimum

wages to respondents-Workmen as per Central Government’s Notification (Annexure P-5). Attention of this Court is drawn to Central

Government’s Notification of 19th January, 2017 (Annexure P-5) to submit that Central Government’s Notification would apply only when the

minimum wages fixed by the State Government for the employees are lower than the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government and not vice-

versa. It is submitted that petitioner is governed by State Government’s Notification and minimum wages as per State Government’s

Notification have been already paid and therefore, impugned order directing payment of the excess amount of minimum wages vis-Ã -vis Central and

State Government Notification alongwith levy of compensation imposed to respondents-Workmen is unjustified. Hence, quashing impugned order is

sought in these petitions.

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents-Workmen submits that petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the undertaking given to

the Competent Authority, as recorded in the order of 9th January, 2018, and the minimum wages payable ought to be as per the minimum wages

payable by the Central Government and so, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Thus, dismissal of these petitions is sought.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 17th April, 2018 (AnnexureP-16), order of 9th January, 2018 (AnnexureP-14) and the material

on record, I find that the impugned order is based on the statement of petitioner to the effect that petitioner had agreed to pay the excess amount of

minimum wages vis-Ã -vis Central Government and the State Government Notifications and so, in the considered opinion on this Court, there was no

justification to have granted compensation two times more than the excess amount. Apart from the financial stringency expressed by petitioner, levy

of compensation is otherwise not justified, as the impugned order is not strictly on merits, though it does refer to the Notification of Government of

India. So, the compensation levied vide impugned order deserves to be set aside.

It is matter of record that petitioner had volunteered to pay the minimum wages as per Central Government’s Notification (Annexure P-5).

During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Authorized Representative of petitioner, alongwith

counsel-Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate was present before the authority concerned on 9th January, 2018 when petitioner had volunteered to pay

the wages as per the Central Government’s Notification for the period from 19th January, 2017 to 2nd March, 2017. No prudent person would

accept that ‘Offer’ to make the payment as per the Central Government’s Notification was out of any confusion. It has not been spelt out

as to what was the confusion. Furthermore, affidavit of above-named Mukesh Yadav, Authorized Representative of petitioner, or of the counsel-

Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, who were present on 9th January, 2018 when the order (Annexure P-14) was passed, is forthcoming and so,

petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the ‘Offer’ to pay the compensation as per Central Government’s Notification (Annexure

P-5).

It is quite evident that if the minimum wages fixed by Central Government are lower than the minimum wages fixed by the State Government for

the employees, then the minimum wages as fixed by the State Government are payable, but not vice-versa. Petitioner has already paid the minimum

wages as per the State Government, but in tune with this social legislation, payment of minimum wages as per Central Government’s Notification

for the period 19th January, 2017 to 2nd March, 2017 cannot be faulted with. However, I find that petitioner had volunteered to pay the minimum

wages as per the Central Government’s Notification and so, in the peculiar facts of the instant case, petitioner cannot be allowed to wriggle out of

it as the ‘Offer/undertaking’ to pay the minimum wages as per the Central Government’s Notification is not vitiated by any coercion, fraud

etc..

In light of the aforesaid, impugned order so far as it levies compensation two times the excess amount payable is put on hold subject to petitioner

paying the excess amount of minimum wages, as directed vide the impugned order, to respondents-Workmen within a period of twelve weeks from

today, failing which the compensation leviable under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 shall stand revived. Needless to say, if petitioner

pays within time, excess amount to respondents-Workmen in terms of impugned order, then petitioner stands relieved of paying compensation as

levied by the impugned order.

With aforesaid directions, these petitions and the pending applications are disposed of while directing petitioner to pay composite litigation expenses

of Rs.30,000/- to Shri. M.K. Bishnoi, Advocate who has ably assisted the court on behalf of respondents-Workmen.