UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus AVTAR CHAND ETC. ETC. on 19 February 2019

[2019] 4 S.C.R. 577

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

v.

AVTAR CHAND ETC. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos.3416-3445 of 2010)

FEBRUARY 19, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]

Compensation: Claim of – Award of 200% compensation –Justification of – On facts, non-payment of minimum wages toworkmen – Order by the Specified Authority directing the employersto pay to each worker the difference in wages towards the claimplus compensation at the rate of 200% of the claim – High Courtupheld the order – On appeal, held: In an identical case, the HighCourt awarded 100% compensation to similarly placed workers,thus, there was no justification to award compensation at the rateof 200% to the workers – Though it was the discretion of the Courts/Authority to award compensation with different percentage in everycase but it was necessary to give reasons in support thereof – HighCourt failed to give reasons – Thus, each worker entitled to claimcompensation at the rate of 100% in place of 200% – Labour Laws.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court, in the instant case also shouldhave awarded compensation at the rate of 100% to eachrespondent alike the one awarded in other case which had attainedfinality. There is no justification to award compensation at therate of 200% to the respondents when in other identical case,the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of 100% tosimilarly placed workers. [Paras 16, 17] [580-D-E]

1.2 Though, it was the discretion of the Courts/Authority to award compensation with different percentage in every casebut it was necessary to give reasons in support of award of suchcompensation. It was much more so when the High Court awardedcompensation at the rate of 200% to some workers and awardedat the rate of 100% to other workers though similarly situated.This necessitated for giving of reasons as to why compensation

577

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awas being awarded at the rate of 200% to one set of workers asagainst the other set of workers at the rate of 100% when allwere similarly placed. The High Court failed to give any reasonwhile awarding compensation at two rates. The impugned orderis modified to the extent that each respondent-worker is heldentitled to claim compensation amount at the rate of 100%, i.e.,BRs.49,804/- in place of 200% which was awarded by the Courtsbelow. Each respondent-worker is held entitled to receive a sumof Rs.49,804/- (100%) towards his claim plus Rs.49,804/- by wayof compensation = total Rs.99,608/-. [Paras 18-20][580-F-H;581-A-B]CCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3416-3445 of 2010.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition Nos. 3126, 3128,3129, 3130, 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3136, 3137, 3138, 3139, 3140, 3141,D3142, 3143, 3144, 3145, 3148, 3149, 3150, 3151, 3153, 3154, 3155, 3156,3157, 3158, 3159, 3160 and 3161 of 2007.

Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Sarad Kumar Singhania (for ArvindKumar Sharma), Adv. for the Appellants.

Binay Kumar Das, Adv. for the Respondents.EThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. These appeals are directedagainst the final judgment and order dated 01.03.2007 passed by theHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition Nos.3126, 3128, 3129, 3130, 3132, 3133-3145, 3148-3151 and 3153-3161 ofF2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by theappellants herein.

2. A few facts need mention infra for the disposal of these appealswhich involve a short point.

3. The appellant No.1 is the Union of India (Commander, WesternGBase Workshop, General Reserve Engineers Force at Pathankot) andrespondent 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 withthe appellant No.1’s workshop (GREF) at Pathankot for the period fromH01.03.2001 to 30.06.2004. The respondents, however, raised a grievance

that during the said period, they were paid less wages than the minimumwages fixed for their category of employment under the Minimum WagesAct, 1948 (for short called, “the Act”) and which were legally payableto them.

5. In other words, their grievance was that the appellants did notpay to them the minimum wages prescribed under the Act to which theywere legally entitled but were paid less than the minimum wages. Therespondents, therefore, claimed the difference of what was paid to themand what were legally payable to them under the Act by the appellants.According to the respondents, each worker was, therefore, entitled toclaim a sum of Rs.49,804/- from the appellants being the difference inthe wages.

6. Since the appellants did not pay the difference of amount claimedby each respondent, the respondents filed applications (Claim ApplicationNo.552/2004 & others connected matters) under Section 20(3) of theAct before the Specified Authority, Chandigarh.

7. By order dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure-P-2), the SpecifiedAuthority allowed the applications and directed the appellants to pay toeach 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 theHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh out of which theseappeals arise. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writpetitions and affirmed the order of the Specified Authority giving rise tofiling of the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in theseappeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing theappellants’ writ petitions.

10. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for theappellants and Mr. Binay Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellantswhile assailing the legality of the impugned order argued only one point.It was his submission that in an identical case, the High Court awarded100% compensation to similarly placed workers in CWP No. 3127/2007decided on 01.03.2007 whereas, in the present case, the High Courtawarded compensation at the rate of 200% payable toeach respondent-worker.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A12. Learned counsel urged that in the absence of any reason or/and justification for awarding compensation at the rate of 200% in thepresent case, whereas awarding compensation at the rate of 100% toother similarly situated workers, the award of compensation at the rateof 200% to each respondent in this case does not stand to any reasonand hence not legally sustainable.B

A

13. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the High Court shouldhave also awarded similar compensation at the rate of 100% to eachrespondent alike the one awarded in other case.

14. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported theCimpugned order and contended that no case is made out to call for anyinterference.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case including the written submissions filed on behalfof the appellants, we find substance in the submission of the learnedDcounsel for the appellants.

16. In our considered opinion, the High Court, in the case at handalso should have awarded compensation at the rate of 100% to eachrespondent alike the one awarded in other case (CWP No. 3127/2007decided on 01.03.2007) which had attained finality.

E

17. In fact, we do not find any justification to award compensationat the rate of 200% to the respondents when in other identical case, theHigh Court awarded compensation at the rate of 100% to similarlyplaced workers.

18. Though, it was the discretion of the Courts/Authority to awardFcompensation with different percentage in every case but it wasnecessary to give reasons in support of award of such compensation. Itwas much more so when the High Court awarded compensation at therate of 200% to some workers and awarded at the rate of 100% to otherworkers though similarly situated. This necessitated for giving of reasonsas to why compensation was being awarded at the rate of 200% to oneGset of workers as against the other set of workers at the rate of 100%when all were similarly placed. The High Court having failed to give anyreason while awarding compensation at two rates, it calls for interferencein these appeals.

H

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. AVTAR CHAND[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeals andmodify the impugned order to the extent that each respondent-worker isheld 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.

A

20. In other words, now each respondent-worker is held entitledto receive a sum of Rs.49,804/- (100%) towards his claim plusBRs.49,804/- by way of compensation = total Rs.99,608/-.

21. The appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.99,608/- toeach respondent-worker within three months from the date of this orderafter proper verification.

C

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H