IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 4287 of 2023 Bhootpurv Sainik Kalyan Sangh, Ranchi, through its Secretary, Anirudh Singh ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner, (Central), Dhanbad 2. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra For the Respondents: Mr. Jitendra Tripathi ----- 06/10.02.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.51,452/- to the concerned worker-Pawan Kumar Bharti. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It transpires from the record that the petitioner had not paid the statutory minimum wages to the concerned worker as was required under Notification No. SO 2288(E) dated 18.09.2012 issued by the Government of India. The wages paid to the concerned worker were less than the rate notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1948’). Despite issuing the inspection report/notice dated 09.09.2014 to the petitioner to rectify the irregularities, it failed to pay differential amount to the concerned worker. Hence, the same was found violative of the provisions as contained in Section 12 of the Act, 1948. 4. The respondent No.2 in the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 has made factual observation based on the evidence available on record that the petitioner had also not paid the wages to the concerned worker for the work done by him on weekly rest days including the overtime wages for doing the extra work on weekly rest days which was also violative of the provisions as contained in Sections 13(1)(c) & 14 of the Act, 1948. 5. Thus, the respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay three times of difference of wages as compensation to the concerned worker for not paying the minimum wages in time. The petitioner was accordingly ordered to pay Rs.51,452/- on account of difference of wages, overtime wages and compensation to the concerned worker. Under the aforesaid facts said circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity/illegality in the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the respondent No.2. 6. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)