K. Narayana Kurup, J.
1. In this Original Petition the petitioner/employee seeks to quash Ext. 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 September 12, 1988 to December 4, 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 June 22, 1976 to December 5, 1988. On March 8, 1989 the employee filed an application under Section 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 Ext. P1(3)) whereas he is entitled to Rs. 739/- to Rs. 776/80 per month as vary from month to month as shown in the schedule attached to his application evidenced by Ext. P1. His total claim inclusive of compensation for Rs. 500/- is for Rs. 4,308/30. Since there was a delay of 7 months and 8 days in preferring Ext. P1 claim petition, the said claim petition was accompanied by Ext. P2application dated March 8, 1989 to condone the delay. The employer filed Ext. P3 counter statement to Ext.Pl claim petition contending inter alia that there is no legal or factual basis for Ext. P1 claim petition and that a portion of the claim had become barred by limitation. The employer also filed Ext. P4 counter statement to Ext.P2 application for condonation of delay contending that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The employee filed Ext.P5 rejoinder dated May 29, 1989 reiterating his contentions in Ext.P1. The Authority, by proceedings evidenced by Ext.P6 dated May 28, 1990 disposed of Ext.Pl directing the employer to pay to the employee a compensation of Rs. 3,235/- in addition to the difference in wages amounting to Rs. 1073/- for the period from September 12, 1988 to December 4, 1988. As noticed already, the employer challenges the validity of Ext.P6 in the instant Original Petition.
3. The thrust of the employer's contention is that in as much as he has expressed his willingness to pay the amount of minimum wages as per Ext.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 Ext.Pl 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 theemployee 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 Section 20(2) 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 Ext. P6 proceedings of the Authority is legal and valid and that part of Ext.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 under the Act. It was also contended on behalf of the learned counsel that under the Act, the Authority has jurisdiction to grant compensation upto 10 times the amount of such excess (Rs. 1073) and what has been awarded is only Rs. 3,235/- and that being so, the order cannot be categorised excessive or arbitrary.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the employer and the 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 in as much as he has expressed his willingness to pay minimum wages as per Ext.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 Ext.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 Ext.P3 statement, it does not follow that the employee is not entitled to receive any compensation as directed by the Authority.
5 A. 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 Ext. P1. 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, 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 for the Authority under the Act to step in and to award an amount which 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 Ext. 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. Kurian v. Managing Partner, Hindustan Shipping Company 1974 KLT 659 and Mohammed Koya v. Balan (1970-II-LLJ-486).
6. Yet another aspect to be considered in thispetition is whether the employee is entitled for a direction for payment of minimum wages for the full period from January 1, 1988 to December 4, 1988 in which case the total amount would be Rs. 4,308/30 as can be seen from Ext.Pl 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 March 8, 1989 and limited the claim to Rs. 1073/- for the periodfrom September 12, 1988 to December 4, 1988. According to me, the action of the authority in denying minimum wages to the employee for the entire period from January 1, 1988 to December 4, 1988 cannot be justified. No doubt, theemployee has not challenged Ext. 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 quivtve'. In this connection, ithas to be remembered that the right which is sought to be vindicated by the employee is a constitutional right enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution. Adverting to the scope of this Article, this court in the decision reported in 1993(1) KLT 364 (Principal, Trichur Engg. College v. Sreenivasan) had held that any employment in which the employee is denied the minimum wages will amount to 'forced labour' attracting the prohibition contained in Article 23 of the Constitution of India so that failure to pay minimum wages as enjoined in Article 23 by the employer to the employee will amount to violation of the constitutional right enshrined in Article 23. It was also held that the right guaranteed under Article 23can be 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 employee 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 January 1, 1988 to December 4, 1988. The employee has not filed the application within the time prescribed under Section 20(2) of the Act and that 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 Ext. P2 and having regard to the statements contained in Ext.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 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 Ext.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 1 lable to be modified to the above extent. Ext.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 January 1, 1988 toDecember 4, 1988 as claimed by him in Ext.Pl instead of for the period from September 12, 1988 to December 4, 1988. The employer is directed to pay to the employee the entire amount claimed as minimum wages as perExt.P1.
7. In the result, the challenge against Ext.P6 fails and the original petition is dismissed. Nocosts.