UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus AVTAR CHAND ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 19-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 to
workmen – Order by the Specified Authority directing the employers
to pay to each worker the difference in wages towards the claim
plus compensation at the rate of 200% of the claim – High Court
upheld the order – On appeal, held: In an identical case, the High
Court awarded 100% compensation to similarly placed workers,
thus, there was no justification to award compensation at the rate
of 200% to the workers – 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 thereof – High
Court failed to give reasons – Thus, each worker entitled to claim
compensation 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 should
have awarded compensation at the rate of 100% to each
respondent alike the one awarded in other case which had attained
finality. There is no 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. [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 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
   [2019] 4 S.C.R. 577
 577
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
was being awarded at the rate of 200% to one set of workers as
against the other set of workers at the rate of 100% when all
were similarly placed. The High Court failed to give any reason
while awarding compensation at two rates. The impugned order
is modified to the extent that each respondent-worker 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. Each respondent-worker 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/-. [Paras 18-20][580-F-H;
581-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal Nos. 3416-
3445 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition Nos. 3126, 3128,
3129, 3130, 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3136, 3137, 3138, 3139, 3140, 3141,
3142, 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 Arvind
Kumar Sharma), Adv. for the Appellants.
Binay Kumar Das, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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, 3133-3145, 3148-3151 and 3153-3161 of
2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
appellants herein.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
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.
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 we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.