Allowed

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty v. the Labour Commissioner and Presiding Officer

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2012WP/16533/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed to quash an ex-parte order fixing minimum wages差额. The court held that the first respondent passed the order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without issuing a show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.8.2006 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent to reconsider after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty Vs the Labour… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012,

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NK. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.16533 OF 2007 (L-MW)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty, 0cc: Owner of Subhasagar Hotel, Dharwad Dist. Kittur Complex, Halemevinpet, Age: 23 years,

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

AND: (By Shri Chikkanaragund & Shri H.M.Dharigond, Advs.)

¶9

Under the Minimum Wages Act, Dharwad, Sub-Division-I, Hubli, The Labour Commissioner And Presiding Officer, Dist: Dharwad. 2. The Senior Labour Inspector, 1st Circle,

¶10

Respondents

¶11

(By Shri P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP for Ri & R2),

¶12

¶13

& 227 of 26.8.2006 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A. the Constitution of India Praying to quash the order dated This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226

¶14

‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following: This Writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in

¶15

ORDER

¶16

respondent vide Annexure A. the order dated 26th August 2006 passed by the first Petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing

¶17

1st September State of Karnataka. State of Karnataka fixed the minimum wages in respect after obtaining necessary licence from the 2005 at 1:00 P.M. found that petitioner has engaged child labour in his hotel and failed to maintain the payment register of the Dharwad, The only grievance of the petitioner in the The competent authority of the is running a hotel The squad of the respondents/ the of the employees at the above hotel on office of the second respondent inspected the Hotel and 2. instant writ petition is that, he business in the name and style of ‘Subhasagar Hotel’ in

¶18

the said authority to direct the petitioner to pay the application filed by the second respondent, the first sum of 31,902/-, before the first respondent, within 30 proceedings Annexure A, and directed the petitioner to deposit a days from the date of the said order. Labour. No.KA/Attu/ 1 /OMWA/ GR/9 / 2006 difference of the minimum wages of 5,3 16- to the child Therefore, the impugned order passed liable to vitiate. Accordingly, the second respondent has filed The said order On the basis of the vide by the first respondent cannot be sustained and it is natural justice. has been passed ex-parte, without affording reasonable respondent has initiated proceedings vide Annexure A in an application before the first respondent and requested labour employed by petitioner. opportunity of hearing in compliance of the principles of

¶19

petitioner in the instant writ petition and heard the / 3. 2 /• ——— I have gone through the grounds urged by the

¶20

¶21

1 and 2. learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents

¶22

After careful perusal of the order impugned to by the be It is significant to note is is to to 4. of 31,902/26th August 2006, it emerges that there is a reference in has has neither filed any objections nor participated in the passed by the first respondent, vide Annexure A that, only once he has participated in the proceedings respondent, respondent within thirty days. petitioner and and it appears as per the reference made in the order dated the order that a notice was issued to him to appear and the the workman and thereafter held that the workman ex-parte and in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, he less than minimum entitled after deposited the proceedings. first first he in fact appeared only once and thereafter remained the confirmed a sum Therefore, coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was paying be paid wages, difference of wages fixed at 5,317/- to be paid to its before

¶23

/ ——-

¶24

In just one line, the first respondent has to of of the Act respondent has proceeded to pass the order impugned. If the said authority respondent, being the competent authority, ought to 4 present. respondent, stating that in spite of giving time, he has licence/permit granted had done such an exercise, he might have secured the Instead of conducting and consonance rules, impugned that, he has neither represented nor filed the petitioner for running the hotel. presence of the petitioner and proceeded to pass the thorough date further notice was issued, to which address it has the withdrawal the the not Thereafter, relevant been sent, etc. and why he is liable to be modified not proceeded to accept the application filed by second the the order on merits of the case. strictly provisions ‘liz— objections. any enquiry, But, nothing is forthcoming as to on what said first objections. have issued a show cause notice before terminating or This is not the requirement of the statute. with in The first filed

¶25

¶26

Therefore, be set aside on this ground alone. in of the considered view that the order impugned passed to view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court I am by first respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to respondent, without affording reasonable opportunity of and this Court in catena of decisions. hearing of the the principles of natural justice has proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶27

first 2006 in part. The vide In the light of the facts and circumstances of by respondent passed the case, the writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed

¶28

The matter stands remitted back to the first respondent to re-consider the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, personally or through his counsel, as expeditiously as possible, at any 6.

¶29

¶30

¶31

rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

four weeks from today. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondents, within

¶33

3d!WDGK

¶34

BMV*

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty v. the Labour Commissioner and Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaram Krishnappa Shetty v. the Labour Commissioner and Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmana Vs the Commissioner City Municipality

Ratnavva Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.

S N Haveri Vs the General Manager (Administrative and Hrd)

Mr Satish Gajanan Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

V R Shyanbhag S/O R P Shyanbhag Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh S/O Basavaraj Ambadagatti Vs the Chief General Manager Karnataka Telecom Circle