Smt. Pathigulla Sarada vs Union Bank of India

1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK W.A.Nos.245, 304, 320 OF 2022 & W.P.Nos.12114, 12109, & 14663 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the interlocutory orders dated 09.3.2022 and 23.3.2022 passed in the writ petitions, the present writ appeals have been filed.

Challenging the impugned order dated 17-01-2022 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Hyderabad, the present writ petitions have been preferred.

2.

Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals and writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3.

For convenience, the facts in W.A.No.245 of 2022 are hereunder discussed.

2 4.

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri Dr.

K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.4.

5.

It is the case of the appellants that they have approached the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 & Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Authority’) claiming minimum wages along with damages, and the Authority has passed an order on 17.01.2022 directing the respondents to pay the difference of wages and also one time compensation totaling to Rs.5,31,150/- to the appellants.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the Authority has examined the entire case and directed the respondents to pay minimum wages as per 3 the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

As the respondents have violated the Minimum Wages Act, the Authority was justified in directing the respondents to pay difference of wages and one time compensation. pensation.

But, this fact was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge and suspended the order passed by the Authority.

Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeals by setting aside the impugned suspension granted passed by the learned Single Judge and further direct the respondents to pay minimum wages along with compensation as directed by the Authority.

7.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, had contended that the respondents are willing to pay the difference of wages.

8.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in principle, agreed that the order passed by the Authority in respect of payment of one time compensation can be set aside.

4 9.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that since the respondents are willing to pay the difference of wages of Rs.2,65,575/- to the appellants (each), all the writ appeals and the writ petitions can be disposed of.

10.

Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals as well as the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to pay the difference of wages of Rs.2,65,575/- to each of the appellants and the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Authority in respect of one time compensation is set aside.

No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ______________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 02.02.2023 rkk