W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD).No.18839 of 2022 The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Thallakulam, Madurai. ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner, Labour Commission, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Inspector, Labour 1st Division, 1st Sarakam, Madurai. 3.The Administration, Integrated Service Centre, 1, Bala Nagammal Kovil Street, Bykara, Madurai. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in Case in MW 50 of 2017 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, dated 21.10.2021 and to quash the same. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinayak For R-1 and R-2 : Mrs.K.R.Shivashankari, Counsel for the State For R-3 : No Appearance O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent in M.W. No.50 of 2017, dated 21.10.2021. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Corporation had engaged a contractor for the supply of manpower pursuant to a tender process. The contractor, having quoted the lowest rate based on the wages fixed by the District Collector in the proceedings dated 27.05.2015, was awarded the contract. 3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the second respondent conducted an inspection and alleged that the contract labourers engaged by the contractor had been paid wages lower than the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Consequently, proceedings were 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 initiated under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 claiming a sum of Rs.27,68,088/- towards the alleged differential wages and compensation. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the claim was founded upon G.O. (2D) No.91, Labour and Employment (J1) Department, dated 12.12.2013. However, the said Government Order was neither marked as an exhibit before the Authority nor adverted to in the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the Authority failed to record any finding regarding the minimum wages prescribed under the said Government Order, the wages actually paid by the contractor, or the basis on which the differential wages were computed. Without undertaking such an exercise, the Authority mechanically allowed the claim petition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Authority has allowed the claim petition filed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, there is absolutely no discussion regarding the notification or Government Order fixing the applicable minimum wages, namely, G.O. (2D) No. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 91, Labour and Employment (J1) Department, dated 12.12.2013. The said Government Order has also not been marked before the Authority. 7. More importantly, the Authority has not recorded any finding with regard to: (i) the minimum wages applicable to the workmen during the relevant period; (ii) the actual wages paid by the contractor to the workmen; (iii) whether there was any shortfall in the payment of minimum wages; and (iv) the basis on which the amount of Rs.27,68,088/- has been arrived at. 8. An adjudication under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 necessarily requires the Authority to determine the statutory minimum wages applicable to the workmen, examine the evidence relating to the wages actually paid, compare the two, and thereafter quantify the differential wages, if any, payable. In the absence of such an exercise, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order suffers from non-application of mind and is therefore liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the first respondent in M.W. No.50 of 2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 first respondent for fresh adjudication. 10. The first respondent shall afford sufficient opportunity to both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant Government Orders/Notifications fixing the minimum wages and all other documents relevant for determining the wages payable. Upon such consideration, the first respondent shall determine: (i) the minimum wages applicable to the workmen; (ii) the wages actually paid by the contractor; (iii) whether there was any violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; and (iv) the differential wages and compensation, if any, payable and thereafter pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. 11. The above exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes TSG To 1.The Joint Commissioner, Labour Commission, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Inspector, Labour 1st Division, 1st Sarakam, Madurai. 3.The Administration, Integrated Service Centre, 1, Bala Nagammal Kovil Street, Bykara, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI ,J. TSG ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.24749 of 2022 DATED : 30.06.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis