G4s Seurity Services (India) Private Limited v. Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Asnd 2 ORS.

WP211_11.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.211 OF 2011 M/s. G4S Security (India) Private Limited ...

Petitioner Vs.

Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and The Regional Labour Commissioner and others ...

Respondents Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant for Petitioner.

Mr. Harish V. Mehta i/b. Salgaonkar and Co. for Respondents. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE :

JULY 13, 2017 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondents at length.

2.

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai in M.C.A.No.83 of 2009. By that order, the authority allowed the application made under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'Act') filed by Shri D. S. Hire, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and Inspector under the Act on 29.07.2009. The Authority directed the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs.3,28,776/- as compensation by Demand Draft drawn in favour of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai payable at Mumbai. The Authority also directed the petitioner to take steps to disburse the amount of compensation to the concerned workmen. 3.

It is the common ground between the parties that even prior to filing of the application, petitioner had paid difference of wages to the 1/2

WP211_11.sxw tune of Rs.1,64,388/- and the said fact was also confirmed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). Mr. Sawant, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Mr. Mehta did not dispute the fact that on 17.04.2009, petitioner had paid Rs.1,64,388/- being the difference of wages even before filing of the application on 29.07.2009. It is also not in dispute that the said amount is disbursed to the concerned workmen.

4.

In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2