[2025:RJ-JP:24686] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10931/2008 Gram Panchayat Pragpura, Panchayat Samiti Virat Nagar, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur Through Its, Shyam Colony, Ganesh Road, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Payment Of Minimum Wages Authority Under The Minimum Wages Act 1948, District Jaipur, Jaipur Raj. 2. Vinod Kumar Valmiki Son Of Shri Madan Lal Valmiki 3. Smt. Kamla W/o 4. Bajrang Lal S/o 5. Mahesh Chand Parashar S/o, Sl. No. 2 To 5 All Residents Of Village Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur Raj. 6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Virat Nagar, District Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10924/2008 Gram Panchayat Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaiput through its Secretary, Kundan Ram Kumhar son of Shri Prahlad Sahai Kumhar, aged about 31 years, resident of V&P. Bar Nagar, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1.Payment Of Minimun Wages Authority (under the Minimum Wages Act 1948), District Jaipur, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Bhagwan Sahai Choudhary son of Shri Suraj Mal Jat 3. Subhash Chandra Goyal son of shri Satya Narain Goyal 4. Kunj Bihari Lal sharma S/o Shri Laxmi Narain Sharma 5. Kailash Chand Sharma S/o shri Banshidhar Patel 6. Shyam Lal Yadav S/o Shri Bhura Mal Yadav 7. Ratan Lal Sain S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad 8. Smt. Santara Devi W/o Late Shri Jagdish 9. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Mamraj 10. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Shri Hanuman Sahai 11. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Shri Nand Kishore. [2025:RJ-JP:24686] (2 of 5) [CW-10931/2008] 12. Smt. Rajli Devi W/o Shri Suresh Chand 13. Smt. Naina Devi W/o Shri Radhey Shyam 14. Brij Mohan S/o Shri Prabhati Lal 15. Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Durga Prasad 16. Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Nanthu Ram. 17. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Gulla Ram 18. Pappu Ram S/o Shri Rekha Ram 19. Lallu Ram S/o Shri Sua Lal 20. Narsi Ram S/o Shri Rekha Ram 21. Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Sua Lal 22. Mam Chand S/o Shri Prabhati Lal 23. Om Prakash S/o Shri Banwari Lal Sl. No. 2 to 23 all resident of village Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli. District jaipur (Raj.) 24. Development officer, Panchayat Samiti Virat Nagar, District jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 04/07/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record placed before this Court. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical in nature, with consent of counsel for both the parties these writ petitions are being heard on merits and would stand decided by this common order. 3. Two separate judgments of even dated 05.04.2008, passed by the prescribed authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whereby the petitioners have been directed to award due [2025:RJ-JP:24686] (3 of 5) [CW-10931/2008] minimum wages to the respondent-employees, is under challenge in these writ petitions. 4. It appears that the respondents were employees of the Gram Panchayat on various posts including Safai Karamchari, IV class employees and employees at octroi centers. It is alleged by Gram Panchayat that the respondents were part time employees however, after appreciation of evidence on record, the authority has held that the respondent-employees were full time employees. 5. The authority has considered that the respondent-employees were semi-skilled labours and entitled for the minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The issue arose in respect of non-payment of the determined minimum wages by the petitioners to the respondent-employees, within period from 20.07.2004 to 31.07.2005. The authority has taken into consideration the prescribed minimum wages for semi skilled employees and the wages paid by the Gram Panchayat to the respondent-employees and finally, has directed the petitioners to pay the differential amount of minimum wages to the respondent- employees vide impugned judgments. The amount in respect of each respondent is indicated in the table, referred in the impugned judgments. 6. Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the authorizes the authority to ensure the payment of minimum wages to the employees, governed under the minimum wages and if the wages have not been paid, the due amount of wages can be ordered to be paid including penalty not exceeding ten times of the due amount whereas the authority imposed penalty of equivalent amount to the due amount. [2025:RJ-JP:24686] (4 of 5) [CW-10931/2008] The powers exercised by the authority, appears to be within parameters of the provision of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The impugned order passed by the authority has not been found to be suffering from any perversity much less jurisdictional error. 7. It is settled proposition of law that interference in the fact findings by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 is extremely narrow and limited. In that respect, the oft-quoted judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], may be referred, wherein explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (emphasis supplied) [2025:RJ-JP:24686] (5 of 5) [CW-10931/2008] 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Gram Panchayat has been merged with Nagar Palika but no such application has been filed for substitution of Nagar Palika in place of Gram Panchayat. 9. As a result, the writ petitions being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J ANIL SHARMA /32-33.