1. In this original petition the petitioner/employer seeks to quash Exhibit P6 order passed by the first respondent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, directing the employer to pay compensation of Rs. 3,235, in addition to the difference in wages amounting to Rs. 1,073 for the period from 12 September, 1988 to 4 December, 1988. The facts necessary for the disposal of this original petition are as follows:
2. The second respondent, hereinafter referred to as the employee, was employed by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the employer, as his salesman in his branch petrol bunk at Kalmandapam, Palghat, for the period from 22 June, 1976 to 5 December, 1988. On 8 March, 1989, the employee filed an application under S. 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for issuing a direction to the employer for payment of difference between the wages payable under the Act and the wages actually paid to him for the relevant period. The employee's claim is that he was paid salary at Rs. 410 per month for the above period [See Exhibit P1(3)] whereas he is entitled to Rs. 739 to Rs. 776.80 per month as salary from month to month as shown in the schedule attached to his application evidenced by Exhibit P1. His total claim inclusive of compensation of Rs. 500 is for Rs. 4,308.30. Since there was a delay of months and 8 days in preferring Exhibit P1 claim petition, the said claim petition was accompanied by Exhibit P2 application, dated 8 March, 1989, to condone the delay. The employer filed Exhibit P3 counter-statement to Exhibit P-1 claim petition contending, inter alia, that there is no legal or factual basis for Exhibit P1 claim petition and that a portion of the claim had become barred by limitation. The employer also filed Exhibit P4 counter-statement to Exhibit P2 application for condonation of delay contending that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The employee filed Exhibit P5 rejoinder, dated 29 May, 1989, reiterating his contentions in Exhibit P1. The authority, by proceedings evidenced by Exhibit P6, dated 28 May, 1990, disposed of Exhibit P-1 directing the employer to pay to the employee a compensation of Rs. 3,235 in addition to the difference in wages amounting to Rs. 1,073, for the period from 12 September, 1988 to 4 December, 1988. As noticed already, the employer challenges the validity of Exhibit P6 in the instant original petition.
3. The thrust of the employer's contention is that inasmuch as he had expressed his willingness to pay the amount of minimum wages as per Exhibit P3 counter statement, the authority should not have ordered payment of any compensation at all in favour of the employee and even if any compensation is found payable from the employer to the employee, that sum has to be limited to or quantified at Rs. 500 as claimed by the employee in Exhibit P-1 application itself and, at any rate, the authority acted illegally and without jurisdiction in awarding Rs. 3,235 as compensation which is very much in excess of the sum of Rs. 500 which was claimed by the employee himself. In other words, it was contended that the authority can award only such amount of compensation as is expressly claimed by the employee in his application and the authority has no jurisdiction to award any amount in excess of the amount claimed even though S. 20(3)(i) of the Act provides for payment of compensation “not exceeding 10 times the amount of such excess”. In reply, learned counsel for the employee contended inter alia, that Exhibit P6 proceedings of the authority is legal and valid and that part of Exhibit P6 directing the employer to pay compensation to the employee is not liable to be interfered with and the authority is perfectly justified in granting the compensation which is in excess of what has been claimed by the employee as the authority has jurisdiction in appropriate cases to grant compensation even though the amount claimed by the employee is less than what the employee is entitled to under the Act. It was also contended on behalf of the learned counsel that under the Act, the authority has jurisdiction to grant compensation up to 10 times the amount of such excess (Rs. 1,073) and what has been awarded is only Rs. 3,235 and that being so, the order cannot be categorised as excessive or arbitrary.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the employer and learned counsel for the employee, I am of the view that the employer is not entitled to any relief in this original petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Regarding the direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 3,235 to the employee, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the authority. The only point stressed before me by learned counsel for the employer is that inasmuch as he has expressed his willingness to pay minimum wages as per Exhibit P3 counter-statement, the authority ought not have passed any order directing the employer to pay any compensation at all to the employee. I do not find any merit in this contention. Liability for payment of compensation is attracted whenever wages paid by the employer is found to be less than the minimum rates of wages in which case the authority is given jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders directing compensation to the employee not exceeding 10 times the amount of such excess. So, the liability for payment of compensation is not relatable to the factum of the consent on the part of the employer. The fact that the employer has consented to pay the minimum rates of wages as per Exhibit P3 statement will not absolve him from the liability to pay compensation to the employee. The liability of the employer to pay minimum wages to the employee does not depend upon the employer's consent. Viewed in this light, I do not find any merit in the contention. Simply because he was willing to pay minimum wages as per Exhibit P3 statement, it does not follow that the employee is not entitled to receive any compensation as directed by the authority.
6. Next, it was contended by learned counsel for the employer that even assuming that he can be made liable to pay compensation, such compensation shall in no case exceed the amount claimed by the employee. Admittedly, in the instant case, the amount which was claimed by the employee is only Rs. 500 as can be seen from Exhibit P-1. The question to be considered is whether the authority has jurisdiction to award compensation which is in excess of the amount claimed by the employee, but within the limit prescribed by the Act. In considering this question, one has to bear in mind that we are construing a benevolent social security legislation which is intended to secure social justice and being so, it must receive a liberal interpretation consistent with the interpretation applicable to benevolent legislation. An employee cannot be denied the benefit contemplated under the legislation simply for the reason that in his application he has shown the amount much below what he is entitled to under the Act. In other words, the employee cannot be pinned down to his application nor he can be cribbed, cabined or confined within the four walls of the application. In the matter of compensation, even in cases where the claim made by the employee is less than the amount he is entitled to under the Act, it is open to the Authority under the Act to step in and to award an amount whcih is in excess of the amount so claimed by the employee, but within the limit prescribed under the Act. Viewed in this light, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the direction issued by the authority in Exhibit P6 directing the employer to pay to the employee a sum of Rs. 3,235 as compensation is perfectly justified and does not call for interference in the instant writ petition. (See in this connection K.P Kurien v. Hindustan Shipping Company, [1974 K.L.T 659] and Mohammed Koya v. Balan, [1987 — I L.L.N 352].
7. Yet another aspect to be considered in this petition is whether the employee is entitled to a direction for payment of minimum wages for the full period from 1 January, 1988 to 4 December, 1988, in which case the total amount would be Rs. 4,308.30 as can be seen from Exhibit P-1 page 3. But, the authority has denied the full benefit to the employee on the ground that there is a delay of 7 months and 8 days in preferring the claim petition which was filed on 8 March, 1988 and limited the claim to Rs. 1,073 for the period from 12 September, 1988 to 4 December, 1988. According to me, the action of the authority in denying minimum wages to the employee for the entire period from 1 January, 1988 to 4 December, 1988, cannot be justified. No doubt, the employee has not challenged Exhibit P6 proceedings of the authority, but that by itself is not sufficient to deny relief to the employee forgetting conveniently the role of this Court as the “sentinel on the qui-vive”. In this connection, it has to be remembered that the right which is sought to be vindicated by the employee is a constitutional right enshrined in Art. 23 of the Constitution. Adverting to the scope of this article, this Court in the decision in Principal, Principal, Trichur Engineering College v. Sreenivasan, [1993 — I L.L.N 734], had held that any employment in which the employee is denied the minimum wages will amount to “forced labour attracting the prohibition contained in Art. 23 of the Constitution of India so that failure to pay minimum wages as enjoined in Art. 23 by the employer to the employee will amount to violation of the costitutional right enshrined in Art. 23. It was also held that the right guaranteed under Art. 23 can enforced even against private individuals. In such a case, even in the absence of a petition by the employee, once the Court finds in a petition filed at the instance of the employer that violation of the constitutional right is writ large, the Court shall not shirk from its duty to set things right as the Court has public accountability. Moreover, I am also of the view that a valuable constitutional right which has a social welfare content cannot be permitted to be defeated by a pre-Constitution enactment which prescribes a comparatively shorter period of limitation. Viewed in this perspective, I am of the view that the employee is eligible to a sum of Rs. 4,308.30 being the minimum wages for the period from 1 January, 1988 to 4 December, 1988. The employee has not filed the application within the time prescribed under S. 20(2) of the Act and there is a delay of 7 months and 8 days in filing the application. According to me, the employee has satisfactorily explained the delay in Exhibit P2 and having regard to the statements contained in Exhibit P2, the authority ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application and allowed the application in full. Normally, in such cases the proper course would have been to set aside the order of the authority and remit the case back to the authority with a direction to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that the matter relates to payment of minimum wages, I find that this is a fit case in which this Court itself can pass appropriate orders directing payment of minimum wages due to the employee. I, therefore, hold that Exhibit P6 order of the authority in denying payment of minimum wages for the entire period as claimed by the employee is vitiated and the same is liable to be modified to the above extent. Exhibit P6 is confirmed in so far as it awarded compensation more than what has been claimed by the employee and the same is modified by holding that the employee is eligible for minimum wages for the entire period from 1 January, 1988 to 4 December, 1988, as claimed by him in Exhibit P1 instead of for the period from 12 September, 1988 to 4 December, 1988. The employer is directed to pay to the employee the entire amount claimed as minimum wages as per Exhibit P-1.
8. In the result, the challenge against Exhibit P. 6 fails and the original petition is dismissed. No costs.