Dismissed

The Taluk Social Welfare v. G.M Suresh

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020WP/35502/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by the Taluk Social Welfare Officer challenging a Minimum Wages Authority order. The petitioner had previously undertaken to pay the claimed amounts before the trial court, and the Court held that they must comply with their own promise.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition calling in question the order of the Competent Authority is dismissed.

The Taluk Social Welfare Vs G.M Suresh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.35502/2015 (L - MW)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR – 563 101.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI S.N.ASWATHANARAYAN, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶11

AND

¶12

G.M.SURESH S/O MUNIVENKATARAMANAPPA, MAJOR, GULTUR VILLAGE, HUTTUR POST, KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.

¶13

SMT. KRISHNAMMA C/O SRINIVAS, MAJOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR STUDENTS HOSTEL, KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.

¶14

SRI M.KRISHNAPPA S/O LT. MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR,

¶15

KOTE, KOLAR TOWN – 563 101.

¶16

¶17

4.	P.KANTHARAJU S/O LT. PILLAPPA, MAJOR, RAJAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
	VEMAGAL HOBLI,
	KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 102.
5.	V.SHIVANNA S/O VENKATASWAMY, MAJOR, CHANNAPPAHALLI VILLAGE, VEMAGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 102.
6.	SMT.PARVATHAMA
	C/O LAKSHMANAGOWDA, MAJOR,
	GOVT. GIRLS STUDENTS HOSTEL,
	KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.
7.	K.V.SRINIVAS S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, MAJOR, RAAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, VEMAGAL HOBLI,
	KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 102.
8.	N.NAGARAJA C/O CHIKKANARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, GOVT. BOYS STUDENTS HOSTEL, MADERI,
	KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.
9.	NARAYANASWAMY G.M., S/O DODDAVENKATAPPA, MAJOR, 1^STMAIN ROAD,
	GANGAMMANAPALYA,
	KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.

¶18

¶19

KRISHNAVENI MAJOR, GOVT. P.U. COLLEGE HOSTEL, VEMGAL, KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 102. 11. VENKATARAMANAPPA MAJOR, NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ANTHARGANGE MAIN ROAD KOLAR TALUK & DIST - 563101 12. SMT.VENKATAMMA C/O MUNIYAMMA, MAJOR, MUDUGULI VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DIST – 563 114. 13. SMT.LAKSHMAMA W/O LT. VENKATESHAPPA, MAJOR, POOJARAPPA COMPOUND, BEHIND SANTHI BHAVAN, KILU KOTE, KOLAR TOWN – 563 114. 14. SMT. JAYAMMA C/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, MAJOR, NO.216, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 14^TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR TOWN – 563 101. 15. SMT.NANJAMMA W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, MAJOR,

¶20

¶21

NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE, VIBUTHIPURA, KILUKOTE, KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.

¶22

LAKSHMAMMA W/O CHOWDAPPA, MAJOR, SANTHI NAGAR, 6^TH CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, KOLAR TALUK & DIST. – 563 101.

¶23

MEENAKSHAMMA C/O PRAMOD CHIKKAMANNUR, MAJOR, CONVENER, DIST. DAILLY WAFES EMPLOYEES DIVISION, NO : 84/1, SUKANYABAI NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSURU – 570 009.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI K.GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4, R5, R9 AND R12 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); SMT. K.R.VANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (ABSENT); R2, R8, R10, R11, R13, R15, R16, R17 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016. R7 AND R14 HELD SUFFICIENT; R3 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUSH THE ORDER DTD 21.11.2005 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER THE MINIM UM WAGES ACT 1948 IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO.15/2002-03, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR ETC.

¶27

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner - Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Kolar Taluk has preferred the subject writ petition calling in question the order dated 21.11.2005, of the Labour Officer and the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short) in Claim Application No.15/2003-03, Kolar District, Kolar.

¶31

Heard Sri S.N.Aswathanarayan, learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Govindaraj and learned counsel for first, fourth, fifth, ninth and twelfth respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition is, the respondents herein who are the employees of the petitioner – Department of

¶34

¶35

Social Welfare filed a claim petition before the Competent Authority under Section 20 (2) of the said Act, praying for payment of difference of minimum wage inter alia .

¶36

The Competent Authority by his order dated 21.11.2005, held that the respondents were entitled to the claim that was made for payment of minimum wages. Identical orders were passed by the Competent Authority under the said Act, which were challenged before this Court in writ petition Nos.37448 – 462/2013. This Court by its order dated disposed of with certain directions.

¶37

Considering all the aspects, the Competent Authority has allowed the claim of the respondents. When the claimants filed application for recovery of the said amount before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, the petitioner herein appeared and sought

¶38

¶39

time to implement the order. The trial Court has recorded the submission of the petitioner which reads as follows:

¶40

27-8-2011 Petitioner by ACTO Respondent
Respondent by PNK prays &
FLW to -------- submits that
& unserved he will settle
the case within
2 months &
hence prays
for time is
granted call on
15.10
Sd/-
27/8

¶41

(emphasis supplied)

¶42

Having undertook to implement the order

¶43

before the trial Court wayback on 15.10.2011, have preferred the present writ petitions after a delay of about 10 years as the order challenged in all these

¶44

petitions are of the year 2005.

¶45

This Court in an identical challenge dismissed

¶46

the W.P.No.8459/2008 by its order dated 28.01.2009,

¶47

¶48

filed by the very petitioner on the ground that the Taluk Social Welfare Officer has undertaken to implement the order. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

¶49

“5. Without going into the correctness of the order, since the petitioners have agreed before the learned Sessions Judge that they would pay the amount as ordered and made the learned Sessions Judge to postpone the proceedings on the said submission, now the Government cannot deny the same. In the light of the same, if the Government has already agreed to pay the said amount, in my view, the Government must comply with its promise. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with order impugned.

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed.”

¶51

(emphasis supplied)

¶52

This was carried in W.A.Nos.2560 and 3315-

¶53

37/2009, before the learned Division Bench. The

¶54

learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal by its

¶55

¶56

judgment dated 26.10.2009. The relevant portion of

¶57

the judgment reads thus:

¶58

“3. The order passed by the learned single Judge reveals that since the appellants herein did not comply with the direction given in the order dated 10-62003, respondents approached the Sessions Judge seeking prosecution. Before the Sessions Judge the appellants herein have agreed to comply with the order. Having so agreed, they have taken a U-turn and filed writ petition after a lapse of 5 years from the date of order. That apart, Annexure-R-2 is the letter dated 16-8-2006 produced along with the objections statement. It is written by the District Social Welfare Officer to the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department seeking release of the amount to comply with the order of the Minimum Wages Authority. Despite all these, the present with appeal is filed by the appellant. This attitude of the appellant cannot be appreciated. Since the appellant has agreed to pay the amounts to the respondent-employees, he cannot challenge the correctness of the order of the Minimum Wages Authority and order of the learned single Judge.

¶59

4. The liability to pay minimum wages as determined by the Authority has filed to implement his order though the

¶60

¶61

payment of Minimum Wages to the employees is the statutory obligation under the provisions of the Act, which Act is preconstitutional law, passed the test of Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, the Act mandates to pay minimum wages to the workmen/employees for their living such being the legal position, appellant challenging the orders of the Authority. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the appellant and the State Government to implement the orders impugned in this appeal. The minimum wage fixed cannot be construed as ‘living wage’ or ‘fair wage’. It is most unfortunate that the benefit of the order passed in the year 2003 is not implemented by the appellant, being the officer of the Social Welfare Department. If the State Government and its Department is not implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, then how can it enforce the provisions of the Act against the private employer. Instead of paying the amounts determined, hyper-technical plea is taken to overcome it. The same is highly deprecated.

¶62

5. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.”

¶63

(emphasis supplied)

¶64

¶65

In terms of the order of the learned Co-

¶66

ordinate Bench and the judgment of the learned Division Bench, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

nvj CT:MJ

The Taluk Social Welfare v. G.M Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Taluk Social Welfare v. G.M Suresh

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

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr v Jagannatha Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

T M Pemmaiah Vs Canara Bank

H.M. Narayana Vs M/S Karnataka Food and Civil

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner