M/S G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs Sudhir Kumar Dubey

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on:20.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on:08.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on:08.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC012543602017
+ W.P.(C) 4492/2017
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (I) PVT LTD.....Petitioner
versus
SURAJ KUMAR SAW .....Respondent
# CNR No.DLHC012616662017
+ W.P.(C) 4745/2017
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS INDIA
PVT LTD .....Petitioner
versus
SUDHIR KUMAR DUBEY .....Respondent
# CNR No.DLHC012642012017
+ W.P.(C) 4885/2017
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (I) PVT LTD.....Petitioner
versus
JAGROOP SINGH .....Respondent
# CNR No.DLHC012641892017
+ W.P.(C) 4898/2017
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (I) PVT LTD.....Petitioner
versus
ASHA RAM .....Respondent
# CNR No.DLHC012673642017
+ W.P.(C) 5115/2017
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.
LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
RAJIV KUMAR SINGH & ORS .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 1 of 27

# CNR No.DLHC012673552017
+ W.P.(C) 5142/2017
M/S G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.
LTD. .....Petitioner
versus
MAHENDRA SINGH VERMA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gulshan Chawla and Ms. Kanupriya
Chawla, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Utsav Jain, Adv
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present batch of six writ petitions, filed under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, assail six separate Awards passed
by the Authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
i.e., the Joint Labour Commissioner, West District, Government of
NCT of Delhi, vide which the Authority had partly allowed the claims
of the respective Respondents/Workmen and awarded payment of
overtime wages at double rate along with compensation.
2. Since all the writ petitions arise out of substantially identical
facts and challenge awards rendered on materially similar reasoning,
they were heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 2 of 27

3. The Petitioner/M/s. G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. is
engaged in the business of providing security services. The
Respondents, in the respective writ petitions, were employed by the
Petitioner, as Security Guard/ Armed Guard/ Inspector/ Head Guard/
Supervisor etc. , during different periods. The existence of the
employer-employee relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
4. During the course of their employment, the Respondents
instituted separate applications before the Authority under Section 20
of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, alleging that though they had
regularly worked beyond the prescribed working hours but were paid
overtime wages only at the ordinary rate instead of at twice the
ordinary rate as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The
Respondents, accordingly, sought recovery of the differential overtime
wages together with compensation.
5. In support of their respective claims, the Respondents
examined themselves and tendered their evidence by way of affidavits.
The Respondents relied, inter alia , upon duty rota/charts maintained
by them reflecting the overtime allegedly performed during the
relevant periods.
6. The details of the Respondents and their respective claims are
encapsulated as under: -
Writ
Petition
Employee Date Of
Joining
Claim Filed
On
Period For
Which
Overtime
Claimed
Evidence
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 – Demand
W.P. (C)
4492/ 17
Suraj
Kumar
10.03.2006
(Guard)
7.11.2013 March 2006 –
Feb 2013
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 3 of 27

Saw (7y) Notice
WW1/2 to WW1/10 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/11 to WW 1/24 –
Letters to Authorities
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/4 –
Demand Notice
WW1/5 to WW1/18 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/19 to WW 1/29 –
Letters to Authorities
W.P. (C)
4745/17
Sudhir
Kumar
Dubey
7.07.1998
(Armed
Guard)
7.11.2013 Jan 1998 –
Oct/Dec 2012
(15y)
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/15 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/16 to WW1/17 –
Demand Notice
WW1/18 to WW 1/28 –
Letters to Authorities
W.P. (C)
4885/17
Jagroop
Singh
7.01.1998
(Armed
Guard)
7.11.2013 Jan 1998 –
Oct/Dec 2012
(15y)
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/16 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/17 to WW1/19 –
Demand Notice
WW1/20 to WW 1/31 –
Letters to Authorities
W.P. (C)
4898/17
Asha Ram 17.07.1997
(Armed
Guard)
7.11.2013 July 1997 – Jan
2013
(15y 7m)
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/15 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/16 to WW1/18 –
Demand Notice
WW1/20 to WW 1/30 –
Letters to Authorities
WW1/31 – Action
Taken Report
W.P. (C)
5115/17
Rajeev
Kumar
15.05.1999
(Inspector)
5.03.2014 June 1999 –
Aug 2013
(14y 3m)
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/12 –
Ram
Parvesh
08.10.2002
(Head
5.03.2014 Oct 2002 – Mar
2013
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 4 of 27

Guard) (10y 6m) Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/13 to WW1/15 –
Demand Notice
WW1/16 to WW 1/27 –
Letters to Authorities
WW1/28 – Action
Taken Report
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/12 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/13 to WW1/15 –
Demand Notice
WW1/16 to WW 1/27 –
Letters to Authorities
WW1/28 – Action
Taken Report
Shambhu
Prasad
12.11.2001
(Supervisor)
5.03.2014 Jan 2002 – Aug
2013
(11y 08m)
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/11 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/12 to WW1/14 –
Demand Notice
WW1/15 to WW 1/28 –
Letters to Authorities;
Action Taken Report
and Complaint to SHO
Akhilesh
Prasad
17.06.1998
(Head
Guard)
5.03.2014 Jan 2002 – Dec
2012
(11y)
WW1/A – Affidavit of
Evidence
WW1/1 to WW1/21 –
Monthly Duty Rota
WW1/22 to WW1/25 –
Demand Notice
WW1/26 to WW 1/33 –
Letters to Authorities
W.P. (C)
5142/17
Mahender
Singh
Verma
03.07.1995
(Armed
Guard)
7.11.2013 Jan 1996 – Dec
2012
(17y)
7. The Petitioner/Employer contested the respective applications,
inter alia , contending that the claims were barred by limitation; the
Respondents were not entitled to invoke the provisions of the
Minimum Wages Act; the Respondents had not worked any overtime
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 5 of 27

and have failed to establish that they had actually worked overtime;
and the wages as applicable and due have already been paid.
8. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral evidence and material
placed on record, the learned Authority vide the respective impugned
Awards, held that although the applications had been instituted beyond
the prescribed period of limitation (6 months as per Section 20), the
delay deserved to be condoned only to a limited extent i.e. for the
preceding 3 years from the date of filing of the respective claims. On
merits, the learned Authority concluded that the Employees were
covered under “Schedule of employment in all Shops and
Establishments covered by the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act
1954 and not covered by any other schedule” and since the Petitioner
was registered under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act
2005, it was bound to comply with the provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. As regards the entitlement of overtime wages at
double rate, it was noted that the Respondents had filed their
respective duty rota/charts which has all the necessary details/
particulars inter alia name, clock no., total hours, overtime hours per
day, salary etc. and the Petitioner had failed to produce the relevant
employment records i.e. Attendance Registers/Overtime
Registers/Payment Registers/Bank statements despite the same being
within its possession. Hence, the learned Authority, considering that
admittedly the Respondents had already been paid overtime wages at
the ordinary rate once, awarded the differential amount payable (i.e.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 6 of 27

the double rate) for the preceding 3 years, along with compensation
quantified at 50% of the amount determined.
9. The details of the Awards of the respective claims is
encapsulated as under: -
Writ Petition Employee Date of Award Period For Which
Claim allowed
Total Amount Awarded
(Overtime at single
rate + 50%
Compensation)
W.P.
(C)14492/17
Suraj Kumar
Saw
30.03.2017 Oct 2010 – Feb 2013
(2y 5m)
Rs. 1,35,864/-
(Rs. 90,575/-
+ Rs. 45,288/-)
W.P. (C)
4745/17
Sudhir
Kumar
Dubey
30.03.2017 Oct 2010 – Dec 2012
Rs. 1,95,463/-
(2y 3m)
(Rs. 1,30,309/-
+ Rs. 65,154/-)
W.P. (C)
4885/17
Jagroop
Singh
30.03.2017 Oct 2010 – Oct 2012
Rs. 1,51,650/-
(2y 1m)
(Rs. 1,01,100/-
+ Rs. 50,550/-)
W.P. (C)
4898/17
Asha Ram 30.03.2017 Oct 2010 – Dec 2012
Rs. 2,28,234/-
(2y 3m)
(Rs. 1,52,156/-
+ Rs. 76,078/-)
W.P. (C)
5115/17
Rajeev
Kumar
11.04.2017 Mar 2011 – Aug 2013
(2y 6m)
Rs. 1,60,020/-
(Rs. 1,06,680/-
+ Rs. 53,340/-)
Ram Parvesh Mar 2011 – Mar 2013
Rs. 1,86,534/-
(2y 1m)
(Rs. 1,24,356/-
+ Rs. 62,178/-)
Shambhu
Prasad
Mar 2011 – Aug 2013
Rs. 1,88,852/-
(2y 6m)
(Rs. 1,25,901/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 7 of 27

+ Rs. 62,951/-)
Akhilesh
Prasad
Mar 2011 – Dec 2012
Rs. 1,26,555/-
(1y 10m)
(Rs. 84,370/-
+ Rs. 42,185/-)
W.P. (C)
5142/17
Mahender
Singh Verma
30.03.2017 Oct 2010 – Dec 2012
1,69,275/-
(2y 3m)
(Rs. 1,12,850/-
+ Rs. 56,425/-)
10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid awards, the petitioner has invoked
the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Respondents failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that he
had actually worked overtime. The entire claim rested upon the
Monthly Duty Rota which, admittedly, was prepared by the
Respondents themselves and did not bear the signature or
authentication of the Management. The Respondents also admitted
that they had received no written authorisation to work overtime.
Reliance was placed on D. Krishnan & Anr. v. Special Officer,
Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill & Anr. , 2008 LLR 1188 , to contend
that the burden of proving overtime lies upon the person claiming the
same.
12. It was further submitted that the finding that the Respondent's
evidence was “ unrebutted ” was contrary to the record. The Petitioner
had examined witnesses who categorically deposed that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 8 of 27

Respondents were neither authorised nor required to work overtime.
The mere non-production of records by the Petitioner could not
substitute the Respondent's failure to first establish the factum of
overtime, particularly when the document relied upon by him was
self-prepared and unauthenticated.
13. It was submitted that the learned Authority had treated every
calendar day of the relevant period as a working day, including
Sundays and weekly days of rest, despite there being no evidence that
the Respondents worked continuously without any weekly off, leave
or absence. The computation was based on an inherently improbable
assumption and unsupported by the evidence on record.
14. It was further submitted that the claims pertained recovery of
overtime wages of the period almost a decade preceding the claim and
was barred by the six-month limitation prescribed under Section 20(2)
of the Act. No sufficient cause was shown for the extraordinary delay,
and mere filing of representations with the Petitioner could not extend
the statutory period.
15. It was further submitted that the award of compensation
equivalent to 50% of the overtime amount was contrary to Section
20(3)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which prescribes the
statutory limit on compensation in claims of the present nature. It was
contended that the learned Authority could not rely upon a judgment
rendered under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 to
enlarge the compensation permissible under the Minimum Wages Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 9 of 27

It was further submitted that no prayer for compensation had been
made in the claim application and thus, the Award has been passed
beyond the prayers made in the petition.
16. An alternative contention has also been raised that the
employees, being security guards/supervisors are not covered under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
17. Hence, on the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned
awards be set aside.
18. Per contra , Learned Counsels for the Respondents submitted
that the Respondents had been working overtime for four hours daily
since their respective appointments, but were paid overtime only at the
normal rate instead of the statutorily prescribed double rate. It was
submitted that the Respondents supported their claims by producing
the monthly duty rotas, which recorded their daily duty and overtime
hours. These rotas bore the Petitioner's logo and were submitted by the
security guards to the Petitioner's officers on a monthly basis. It was
further submitted that several representations made by the
Respondents, their Union and other authorities regarding non-payment
of overtime were duly exhibited and remained undisputed.
19. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had taken
inconsistent stands before the learned Authority. While in its Reply to
the claim it had stated that whatever overtime was performed by the
Respondents had been duly paid, its witnesses subsequently deposed
that no overtime work was ever taken from the Respondents. It was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 10 of 27

submitted that the Petitioner failed to produce the attendance register,
overtime register, payment records or bank statements, despite such
records being required to be maintained under Section 18 of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Reliance was placed on the Petitioner's
own witness admitting that the records could not be produced as they
were old. It was therefore contended that the learned Authority was
justified in drawing an adverse inference against the Petitioner.
20. On limitation, it was submitted that the learned Authority had
not condoned the entire delay but had restricted the claims to the
period of approximately three years preceding the filing of the
applications. It was contended that sufficient cause for the delay had
been established through the various representations made by the
Respondents and their Union, to the Management and Labour
authorities. It was submitted that the Respondents had been pursuing
their claims with the Management from time to time and that the
learned Authority, upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence,
had found sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Reliance was
placed upon Sarpanch Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi &
Ors., AIR 1968 SC 222 and Order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the
High Court of Madras in Rambal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of
Labour-II bearing W.P. No. 1575/2014 (relied upon by the learned
Authority).
21. It was submitted that, as regards the compensation awarded, the
statutory limit of Rs.10/- prescribed under Section 20(3) of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 11 of 27

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 dates back to 1948 and does not reflect
present economic realities. Reliance was placed upon the order dated
04.08.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4748/2014 , wherein
compensation of 50% had been awarded in the context of the Delhi
Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, notwithstanding the similarly
outdated statutory provision therein. It was contended that the learned
Authority had rightly adopted the same approach in the present case
and that the compensation awarded was neither excessive nor
unjustified.
22. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned Awards did not
warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, as the learned
Authority had returned findings upon appreciation of the evidence and
had exercised its discretion regarding condonation of delay and
compensation. It was submitted that the Respondents had already
established their entitlement to overtime through the duty rotas and
contemporaneous representations, whereas the Petitioner had failed to
produce the records within its exclusive custody which could have
conclusively established the actual hours worked.
23. It was accordingly prayed that the petitions be dismissed and
the awarded amounts, including the unpaid balance, be directed to be
released to the Respondents along with appropriate interest and costs.
24. Arguments heard and the material placed on record perused.
25. At the outset, it is apposite to mention that in exercise of
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, this Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 12 of 27

does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the
Labour Court/Tribunals/Fact-finding Authorities. Interference is
warranted only where the findings suffer from patent perversity, are
based on no evidence, or are such that no reasonable person could
have arrived at them. Merely because another view on the evidence is
possible would not justify interference. Reference in this regard may
be made to the judgment in International Airport Authority of India
v. International Air Cargo Workers Union :(2009) 13 SCC 374
where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: -
“47. It is true that in exercising the writ
jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in
appeal over the findings and award of the
Industrial Tribunal and therefore, cannot
reappreciate evidence. The findings of
fact recorded by a fact-finding authority
should ordinarily be considered as final.
The findings of the Tribunal should not
be interfered with in writ jurisdiction
merely on the ground that the material on
which the Tribunal had acted was
insufficient or not credible.
48. It is also true that as long as the
findings of fact are based on some
materials which are relevant, findings
may not be interfered with merely
because another view is also possible.
But where the Tribunal records findings
on no evidence or irrelevant evidence, it
is certainly open to the High Court to
interfere with the award of the Industrial
Tribunal.”
26. Turning our gaze to the facts of the present case, as regards the
issue of limitation, the claims preferred by the Respondents were
admittedly not filed within the period of six months prescribed under
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 13 of 27

Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Respondents,
however, accompanied their claims with applications seeking
condonation of delay. The second proviso to Section 20(2) expressly
empowers the learned Authority to entertain an application beyond the
prescribed period where the applicant satisfies it that there was
sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
27. The power conferred upon the Authority under the aforesaid
proviso is discretionary. The question whether sufficient cause has
been shown is essentially a question of fact, to be determined upon
consideration of the circumstances placed before the learned
Authority. Such exercise of discretion would warrant interference in
writ jurisdiction only where it is shown to have been exercised
arbitrarily, on irrelevant considerations or in disregard of the material
on record.
28. Admittedly, the Respondents had relied upon the
Representations made by them and/or their Union from time to time
concerning non-payment of overtime wages at the prescribed rate. The
record contains, inter alia , several communications addressed to the
Management and the Labour authorities seeking payment of overtime
wages. The Respondents also asserted that the grievance had been
raised before the Management during the intervening period.
29. Thus, the learned Authority duly considered the aforesaid
material, and also did not entertain the claims for the entire period for
which overtime was originally claimed. The claims, which in most
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 14 of 27

cases extended over several years, were restricted to the period of
approximately three years preceding the institution of the proceedings.
30. The submission of the Petitioner that mere representations
cannot extend the statutory period of limitation is, as a general
proposition, unexceptionable. However, this Court finds no perversity
or arbitrariness in the aforesaid exercise of discretion by the learned
Authority. The mere fact that the Petitioner may have preferred a
different assessment of the explanation furnished by the Respondents
cannot constitute a ground for interference under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
31. Adverting to the issue of payment of overtime wages, Section
14(1) of the Act makes provision for overtime which reads as "Where
an employee, whose minimum rate of wages is fixed under this Act by
the hour, by the day or by such a longer wage-period as may be
prescribed, works on any day in excess of the number of hours
constituting a normal working day, the employer shall pay him for
every hour or for part of an hour so worked in excess at the overtime
rate fixed under this Act or under any law of the appropriate
Government for the time being in force, whichever is higher".
32. Rule 25 of Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1950, makes
provisions for Extra Wages for overtime which provides that “ 25.
Extra Wages for overtime– (1) When a worker works in an
employment for more than nine hours on any day or for more that
forty-eight hours in any week, he shall In respect of overtime work,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 15 of 27

be entitled to wages :- (a) In the case of employment in agriculture, at
one and a half times the ordinary rate of wage; or (b) In the case of
any other scheduled employment, at double the ordinary rate of
wages ."
33. Now as regards the principal contention that the Respondents
failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that they had actually
worked overtime, there can be no dispute with the proposition that a
claimant seeking overtime wages must establish that he had in fact
worked beyond the prescribed hours. At the same time, the question
whether such burden stands discharged is necessarily dependent upon
the evidence led in the individual case.
34. In the present case, the Respondents entered the witness box
and supported their claims by way of affidavits. They placed on record
monthly duty rotas recording their duty hours and the overtime hours
allegedly performed. The same contains the particulars such as name,
clock no., total hours, overtime hours per day, salary due etc. The
Respondents also relied upon various representations made during the
relevant period complaining of non-payment of overtime wages at the
prescribed rate.
35. It is true that the Petitioner disputes the evidentiary value of the
duty rotas and points out that the Respondents have admitted that they
had prepared rota themselves and the same did not bear the signature
of the Management. However, in the opinion of this Court, the same
does not render the document wholly incapable of consideration. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 16 of 27

Respondents' case was also that the monthly duty rotas were prepared
in connection with their deployment and submitted to the Petitioner's
officers. The forms were stated to bear the Petitioner's logo. The
learned Authority thus assessed the documents in the context of the
entire evidence and not in isolation.
36. More importantly, the Petitioner was in possession of the
records which would ordinarily have constituted the most direct/best
evidence regarding the actual hours of duty performed by the
Respondents. The Respondents specifically called upon the Petitioner
to produce the attendance registers, overtime registers, payment
records and other relevant employment records. The Petitioner's
witness, however, stated that the records could not be produced on the
ground that the claim period was old.
37. Section 18 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 requires the
employer to maintain prescribed registers and records containing
particulars relating, inter alia , to the work performed by employees
and the wages paid to them. The statutory obligation to maintain such
records is relevant while assessing a claim for overtime, since the
actual attendance and duty hours of an employee would ordinarily be
reflected in records maintained by the employer.
38. The burden of proving overtime cannot therefore be considered
in isolation from the evidentiary circumstances of the case. Once the
Respondents produced some material in support of their assertion and
the Petitioner, despite being the custodian of the relevant statutory
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 17 of 27

records, failed to produce those records, the learned Authority was
entitled to consider whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn
against the Petitioner.
39. It is true that the statutory obligation upon the employer to
maintain records does not, by itself, relieve the employee of the initial
burden of establishing his claim. However, the law does not require
the claimant to produce evidence which is exclusively within the
custody of the opposite party. Once the employee places before the
learned Authority material which, if accepted, constitutes a prima
facie basis for his claim, and the employer, who is under a statutory
obligation to maintain the relevant records, fails to produce those
records or offers an explanation which does not satisfactorily account
for their non-production, the learned Authority is entitled to consider
the consequences flowing from such failure.
40. The submission of the Petitioner that the initial burden remained
upon the Respondents is, therefore, accepted as a statement of the
general principle. However, the question is whether that burden was
discharged on the facts of the present case. The learned Authority
answered that question in favour of the Respondents upon
appreciation of the evidence. The conclusion cannot be characterised
as one based on no evidence.
41. The Respondents have also relied upon the statement contained
in the Petitioner's reply that whatever overtime had been performed by
the claimant had been paid for and that no amount remained due. Mere
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 18 of 27

denial by the employer, without producing any documents such as
attendance register or overtime register to show that no overtime was
done, is not sufficient to deny the claim to the Respondents.
42. As regards the contention that the duty rotas were not put to the
Petitioner's witnesses in cross-examination, the same may have a
bearing upon the weight to be attached to the documents. However,
the Respondents' reliance upon those documents was known to the
Petitioner throughout the proceedings. The documents formed part of
the record before the Authority and were relied upon in support of the
claims. This circumstance, by itself, cannot render the entire
evidentiary exercise undertaken by the Authority unsustainable.
43. The Petitioner had also contended that the Respondents, being
employed as Security Guards, Armed Guards, Head Guards,
Inspectors and Supervisors, were not covered under the provisions of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said contention was also raised
before the learned Authority and was duly considered while passing
the impugned Awards.
44. The learned Authority, upon consideration of the applicable
statutory provisions, observed that the Respondents were covered
under the Schedule of “ employment in all Shops and Establishments
covered by the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 and not
covered by any other Schedule ”. The Authority further took note of the
fact that the Petitioner was a security agency registered under the
Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and, even registered
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 19 of 27

as an establishment under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act,
1954. Thus, on that basis, held that the provisions of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 were applicable to the employment in question.
45. The Petitioner has not demonstrated any error in the aforesaid
finding of the learned Authority, hence the same also does not warrant
any interference.
46. The Petitioner has next challenged the computation of overtime
on the ground that the Authority proceeded on the basis of every
calendar day being a working day and thereby included Sundays,
weekly days of rest and other non-working days.
47. The manner of computation adopted by the Authority is
undoubtedly required to be examined in the context of the evidence
placed before it. The learned Authority had before it the monthly duty
rotas relied upon by the Respondents, containing particulars of their
duty and overtime hours. The Management, on the other hand, did not
produce the attendance and deployment records which could have
enabled the Authority to ascertain with greater precision the actual
number of working days.
48. In these circumstances, the mere possibility that the
Respondents may have availed weekly offs, leave or other periods of
absence cannot, in the absence of the relevant records, establish that
the computation adopted by the Authority was wholly without basis.
The learned Authority had to determine the claims on the material
available before it, and the Petitioner cannot derive an automatic
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 20 of 27

advantage from its own inability or failure to produce the very records
which could have demonstrated the precise working pattern.
49. At the same time, this Court is not called upon to determine
whether every individual entry in the duty rotas was factually correct.
Such an exercise would amount to a fresh appreciation of evidence.
The question in these proceedings is whether the computation adopted
by the Authority is so irrational or unsupported by the record that it
warrants supervisory correction. In the facts of the present case, that
threshold has not been crossed.
50. The Petitioner has also challenged the award of compensation
equivalent to 50% of the amount determined towards differential
overtime wages. It has been urged that Section 20(3) of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 prescribed the permissible compensation and that the
Authority could not have travelled beyond the statutory provision by
relying upon a decision rendered under the Delhi Shops and
Establishments Act, 1954.
51. Hence, it becomes apposite to understand Section 20 (3) of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which reads as under: -
“ 20. Claims –(1) The appropriate government may by
notification in the Official Gazette appoint any
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer
of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labor
Commissioner for any region or any officer of the State
Government not below the rank of Labor Commissioner or
any other officer with experience as a judge for a civil
court or as a Stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to
hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising
out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 21 of 27

in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest
or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages at the
overtime rate under section 14 to employees employed or
paid in that area.
XXX XXX XXX
(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is
entertained the authority shall hear the applicant and the
employer or give them an opportunity of being heard and
after such further inquiry if any as it may consider
necessary may without prejudice to any other penalty to
which the employer may be liable under this Act direct :-
(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less
than the minimum rates of wages the payment to the
employee of the amount by which the minimum wages
payable to him exceed the amount actually paid together
with the payment of such compensation as the authority
may think fit not exceeding ten times the amount of such
excess;
(ii) in any other case the payment of the amount due to
the employee together with the payment of such
compensation as the authority may think fit not exceeding
ten rupees;
and the authority may direct payment of such compensation
in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the
employer to the employee before the disposal of the
application.
(4) If the authority hearing any application under this
section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious
it may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be
paid to be employer by the person presenting the
application.
(5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may
be recovered: -
(a) if the authority is a Magistrate by the authority as if it
were a fine imposed by the authority as a Magistrate or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 22 of 27

(b) if the authority is not a Magistrate by any Magistrate to
whom the authority makes application in this behalf as if it
were a fine imposed by such Magistrate.
(6) Every direction of the authority under this section shall
be final.
(7) Every authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall
have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of taking
evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and
compelling the production of documents and every such
authority shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the
purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1898 (5 of 1898).”
52. It emerges that Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
delineates the nature and extent of reliefs that may be granted by the
learned Authority upon adjudication of a claim preferred under Section
20(1). The provision draws a clear distinction between claims arising
out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages and all other
claims falling within the jurisdiction of the learned Authority. In cases
where an employee has been paid less than the minimum rates of
wages, the learned Authority is empowered to direct payment of the
amount by which the minimum wages payable exceed the amount
actually paid and may further award compensation not exceeding ten
times such amount. In contrast, in any other case, including claims
relating to remuneration for rest days or overtime work, the Authority
may direct payment of the amount due together with compensation not
exceeding ten rupees. The legislature had, therefore, consciously
prescribed distinct ceilings of compensation depending upon the nature
of the claim.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 23 of 27

53. In the present case, the claim pertains to overtime wages
allegedly due to the workman under Section 14 of the Act, 1948. The
controversy is not one concerning payment of wages below the
notified minimum rates. Consequently, the claim does not fall within
the ambit of Section 20(3)(i), which governs cases of underpayment of
minimum wages. Rather, it squarely falls within the residuary category
contemplated under Section 20(3)(ii), namely, a claim for an amount
due under the Act other than the deficiency between wages paid and
the prescribed minimum wages. The statutory consequence thereof is
that while the learned Authority is empowered to direct payment of the
overtime wages found due, the compensation awardable in such a case
should not exceed the limit expressly prescribed by the legislature.
54. The impugned order, however, proceeds to award compensation
quantified at 50% of the amount determined towards overtime wages.
Such a direction travels beyond the confines of the statutory power
conferred by Section 20(3)(ii). The learned Authority, has erred in
placing reliance upon the approach adopted by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in its order dated 04.08.2014 in W.P.(C.) 4748/2014, as the
same was passed in the context of a distinct statutory provision and
factual context. The case pertained a petition filed under Section 21 of
the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 seeking payment of due
wages to the applicants. Neither did the same relate to non-payment of
overtime wages nor was it filed under Section 20 of the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948. Notably, this Court, merely declined to inference
with an Award of compensation of 50% of the Award amount due,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 24 of 27

when the statutory cap was of Rs. 100/-, while noting that the amount
prescribed is not adequate considering the prevailing economic
considerations and further directed that the same be brought to the
notice of the competent authorities for appropriate legislative
consideration.
55. Notably, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, under which the
claims in question were instituted and the impugned Awards were
passed, has since been repealed by the Code on Wages, 2019,
st
enforceable from 21 November, 2025. Section 69 of the same reads
as under: -
“ 69.Repeal and savings. —(1) The Payment of Wages Act,
1936 (4 of 1936), the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948),
the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965) and the Equal
Remuneration Act,1976 (25 of 1976) are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action
taken under the enactments so repealed including any
notification, nomination, appointment, order or direction
made there under or any amount of wages provided in any
provision of such enactments for any purpose shall be
deemed to have beendone or taken or provided for such
purpose under the corresponding provisions of this Code
and shall bein force to the extent they are not contrary to
the provisions of this Code till they are repealed under
thecorresponding provisions of this Code or by the
notification to that effect by the Central Government.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), the
provisions of section 6of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10
of 1897) shall apply to the repeal of such enactments.”
56. In the present case, the claims were instituted under Section 20
of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of periods anterior to the
repeal of the said enactment. The claims were thereafter adjudicated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 25 of 27

by the competent Authority and culminated in the impugned Awards in
the year 2017, much prior to the coming into force of the relevant
provisions of the Code on Wages, 2019. The repeal of the enactment,
therefore, does not efface the proceedings already instituted or the
orders passed thereunder. Hence, the present petitions, which assail the
said Awards, have accordingly been considered in the statutory
framework in which the claims were instituted, the Awards were
rendered and the petitions were instituted.
57. Undisputedly, the Learned Authority, in the instant case was
exercising powers under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Thus, the Learned Authority being a creature of the statute, it could not
have travelled beyond the Statutorily prescribed ceiling, at that time.
In these circumstances, while this Court finds no infirmity in the
determination of the overtime wages payable to the workman, the
award of compensation quantified at fifty per cent of the overtime
dues cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly
modified to the aforesaid extent.
58. Having regard to the fact that the workman has been found
entitled to overtime wages for the relevant period and has been
deprived of the use of such amount for a considerable duration, the
ends of justice would be adequately served by directing payment of
interest on the amount awarded towards overtime wages, in place of
the impermissible compensation granted by the learned Authority. The
award shall, therefore, stand modified by deleting the
compensation component while directing payment ofinterest @7%
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 26 of 27

p.a. from the date of accrual of the claim till realization. The
Petitioner shall comply with the respective Awards, subject to
adjustment of any amount already deposited or paid in terms
thereof, within 8 weeks from date of the judgment.
59. Accordingly, the impugned awards are modified to the aforesaid
extent, and petitions are disposed of along with the pending
application(s), if any.
60. A copy of the judgment be placed in all the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
KDK’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:08.09.2026
19:56:32
W.P.(C) 4492/2017& other connected matters Page 27 of 27