UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusAVTAR CHAND ETC. ETC.

                         [2019] 4 S.C.R. 577                           577


                   UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                               A
                                 v.
                   AVTAR CHAND ETC. ETC.
               (Civil Appeal Nos.3416-3445 of 2010)
                       FEBRUARY 19, 2019                               B
              [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
                                                                       C
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     D
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.
                                                                       E
      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       F
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          G
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
                                                                       H
                                 577
578            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A     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.,
B
      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]
C           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,
D     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.
E           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
F     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
G     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
H     01.03.2001 to 30.06.2004. The respondents, however, raised a grievance
          UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. AVTAR CHAND                                579
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

that during the said period, they were paid less wages than the minimum       A
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          B
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.                                                                    C
      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.
       7. By order dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure-P-2), the Specified             D
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               E
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            F
appellants’ writ petitions.
      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.     G
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 respondent-worker.
                                                                              H
580            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 4 S.C.R.


A            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 compensation at the rate
      of 200% to each respondent in this case does not stand to any reason
      and hence not legally sustainable.
B
            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
C     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
D     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 awarded in other case (CWP No. 3127/2007
      decided on 01.03.2007) which had attained finality.
E            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
F     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
G
      set 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 any
      reason while awarding compensation at two rates, it calls for interference
      in these appeals.

H
             UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. AVTAR CHAND                            581
                  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeals and      A
modify the impugned order 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.
      20. In other words, now each respondent-worker is held entitled
to receive a sum of Rs.49,804/- (100%) towards his claim plus                B
Rs.49,804/- by way of compensation = total Rs.99,608/-.
       21. The appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.99,608/- to
each respondent-worker within three months from the date of this order
after proper verification.
                                                                             C

Nidhi Jain                                                Appeals allowed.




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H