The dispute originated when the respondent, referred to as workman No. 2, submitted a complaint on October 13, 2021, citing inadequate wages. The workman claimed employment commenced on January 1, 2020, with a last drawn salary of Rs. 10,000 per month. He alleged that from April 1 to September 30, 2021, his wages fell below the legally mandated minimum rates. Following the termination of his services, the workman sought a total of Rs. 35,448 in arrears along with penalties amounting to ten times that figure.

In response, the petitioner management contended that the workman had voluntarily resigned and completed a full and final settlement by October 22, 2021, thus negating any entitlement to the claimed sums.

   

The concerned authority considered the competing claims. The workman filed a rejoinder, disputing the management's assertions, particularly noting that his signatures were obtained under duress on blank documents. This allegation was serious enough to warrant a police complaint.

The authority framed two critical issues:

Whether the workman was paid in accordance with the minimum wage rates.

What relief the workman was entitled to, if applicable.

Despite being summoned, the petitioner management failed to appear consistently, leading to the workman being examined on oath. Eventually, the authority concluded the proceedings and issued the contested order.

During the recent court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the authority's order was factually incorrect. The counsel referred to documentation purportedly indicating the workman’s resignation and settlement, yet did not provide further substantial arguments to dispute the authority's findings.

Notably, the court observed that the management did not contest the workman's testimony through cross-examination or present any evidence to counter the claims. The court emphasized that the workman's assertions were not merely vague denials but included specific claims of coercion, which remained unchallenged by the management.

Ultimately, the court found no grounds to overturn the authority's decision. The order was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to minimum wage laws and the mechanisms in place to address grievances. It highlights the necessity for employers to engage earnestly in disputes and to contest claims through proper legal channels. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder that unchallenged assertions in labor disputes can lead to unfavorable outcomes for management, particularly in matters concerning worker rights and entitlements.