Union Of India vs Avtar Chand

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)

JUDGMENT

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 few 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