Dismissed

The Management of v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2023WP/21861/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 sought to quash an order directing the petitioner to pay minimum wage differences to a sweeper employed in its temple. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the communication (Ex.P4) established employment existence and no proof was offered to counter claim temple ownership.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the order under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act is dismissed.

The Management of Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 21861 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21861 OF 2013 (L-MW)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI KANNIKA PARAMESHWARI CHOULTRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI S R HARISH S/O RADHAKRISHNA SETTY, R/A MAIN ROAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SIRA-572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBARAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, M S BUILDINGS, DR B R AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE LABOUR OFFICER AND DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶15

THE LABOUR INSPECTOR SIRA CIRCLE, SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.

¶16

SRI KEMPARAMANNA DEAD BY LRS

¶17

a) CHIKKEERAMMA, W/O LATE KEMPARAMANNA,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 21861 of 2013

¶20

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶21

b) JAYAMMA,

¶22

D/O LATE KEMPARAMANNA, W/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDARAKERE VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK-577 601.

¶23

c) LAKSHMAMMA,

¶24

D/O LATE KEMPARAMANNA, W/O JUNJAIAH,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 101.

¶26

d) RAMACHANDRA,

¶27

S/O LATE KEMPARAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KANNIKAPARAMESHWARI TEMPLE,

¶28

MAIN ROAD, SIRA TOWN-572 101.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJE GOUDA J. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. B. BOPANNA AND H K SATHEESH,ADVOCATE FOR R4(A-D) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2011, IN PROCEEDINGS NO. KAA.AATU/KA.VEEKA/CR:72/2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The respondent claims to be working as sweeper in the temple filed an application under Section 20(2)2 of the Minimum Wages Act. The Competent Authority by impugned order directed the petitioner to pay a sum Rs.26,820/- towards the difference in minimum wages. Hence, this petition.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 21861 of 2013

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-workman was working as sweeper in the temple which is not controlled and managed by the petitioner, and the competent authority in the absence of any documents to substantiate that the respondent-workman was working as sweeper under the petitioner has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in law.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent-Workman submits that the document at Ex.P4 clearly indicates that the respondent-workman was working as sweeper in the temple belonging to the petitioner and the competent authority after considering the said document has rightly passed the impugned order.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶38

Ex.P4 is the communication issued by the Management of the temple admitting that respondent No.4 is working as sweeper in the temple belonging to it. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate that the temple does not belong to the petitioner though temple is situated in the premises of the choultry which belongs to the petitioner. The competent authority after appreciating the available material on record, has passed the impugned the order.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 21861 of 2013

¶41

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

The Management of v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of v. the State of Karnataka

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

Shivaraj B S Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Bharatesh Yatagiri

Smt. Bhagyashree P.N. Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri. T G Shankarappa Vs the Director

Smt.M.S.Rajeshwari Vs State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Govindaiah G