Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.34163445 OF 2010
Union of India & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Avtar Chand Etc. Etc. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
Writ Petition Nos. 3126, 3128, 3129, 3130, 3132,
31333145, 31483151 and 31533161 of 2007
whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions
filed by the appellants herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.02.19
17:09:41 IST
Reason:
1
2. A f ew facts need mention infra for the disposal of
these appeals which involve a short point.
3. The appellant No.1 is the Union of India
(Commander, Western Base Workshop, General
Reserve Engineers Force at Pathankot) and respondent
No.2 is its official (Chief Engineer(Project), Sampark,
P.O. Gangyal, Jammu) whereas the respondents are
the workers.
4. The respondents, who were the skilled workers,
worked with the appellant No.1’s workshop (GREF) at
Pathankot for the period from 01.03.2001 to
30.06.2004. The respondents, however, raised a
grievance that during the said period, they were paid
less wages than the minimum wages fixed for their
category of employment under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 (for short called, “the Act”) and which were
legally payable to them.
2
5. In other words, their grievance was that the
appellants did not pay to them the minimum wages
prescribed under the Act to which they were legally
entitled but were paid less than the minimum wages.
The respondents, therefore, claimed the difference of
what was paid to them and what were legally payable
to them under the Act by the appellants. According to
the respondents, each worker was, therefore, entitled
to claim a sum of Rs.49,804/ from the appellants
being the difference in the wages.
6. Since the appellants did not pay the difference of
amount claimed by each respondent, the respondents
filed applications (Claim Application No.552/2004 &
others connected matters) under Section 20(3) of the
Act before the Specified Authority, Chandigarh.
3
7. By order dated 01.11.2006 (AnnexureP2), the
Specified Authority allowed the applications and
directed the appellants to pay to each respondent a
sum of Rs.49,804/ towards the claim plus
Rs.99,608/ towards the compensation (200% of the
claim) = Total Rs.1,49,412/.
8. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed the writ
petitions in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh out of which these appeals arise. By
impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ
petitions and affirmed the order of the Specified
Authority giving rise to filing of the present appeals by
way of special leave in this Court.
9. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in these appeals, is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ
petitions.
4
10. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Binay Kumar Das,
learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
appellants while assailing the legality of the impugned
order argued only one point. It was his submission
that in an identical case, the High Court awarded
100% compensation to similarly placed workers in
CWP No. 3127/2007 decided on 01.03.2007 whereas,
in the present case, the High Court awarded
compensation at the rate of 200% payable to each
respondentworker.
12. Learned counsel urged that in the absence of
any reason or/and justification for awarding
compensation at the rate of 200% in the present case,
whereas awarding compensation at the rate of 100% to
other similarly situated workers, the award of
5
compensation at the rate of 200% to each respondent
in this case does not stand to any reason and hence
not legally sustainable.
13. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the High
Court should have also awarded similar compensation
at the rate of 100% to each respondent alike the one
awarded in other case.
14. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the impugned order and contended that no
case is made out to call for any interference.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case including the
written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants,
we find substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants.
16. In our considered opinion, the High Court, in the
case at hand also should have awarded compensation
at the rate of 100% to each respondent alike the one
6
awarded in other case (CWP No. 3127/2007 decided
on 01.03.2007) which had attained finality.
17. In fact, we do not find any justification to award
compensation at the rate of 200% to the respondents
when in other identical case, the High Court awarded
compensation at the rate of 100% to similarly placed
workers.
18. Though, it was the discretion of the
Courts/Authority to award compensation with
different percentage in every case but it was necessary
to give reasons in support of award of such
compensation. It was much more so when the High
Court awarded compensation at the rate of 200% to
some workers and awarded at the rate of 100% to
other workers though similarly situated. This
necessitated for giving of reasons as to why
compensation was being awarded at the rate of 200%
to one set of workers as against the other set of
7
workers at the rate of 100% when all were similarly
placed. The High Court having failed to give any
reason while awarding compensation at two rates, it
calls for interference in these appeals.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the
appeals and modify the impugned order to the extent
that each respondentworker is held entitled to claim
compensation amount at the rate of 100%, i.e.,
Rs.49,804/ in place of 200% which was awarded by
the Courts below.
20. In other words, now each respondentworker is
held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.49,804/ (100%)
towards his claim plus Rs.49,804/ by way of
compensation = total Rs.99,608/.
8
21. The appellants are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.99,608/ to each respondentworker within three
months from the date of this order after proper
verification.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi;
February 19, 2019.
9