Partly allowed

Panchayat Development Officer v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Minimum

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/48112/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the penalty on minimum wages difference. The petitioner had already paid the wage difference and pledged future compliance regarding Panchayat workers using the Act. The penalty was unsustainable, but the petitioner was directed to adhere to the Act.

What did the court decide?

Penalty of Rs. 2,93,136/- imposed under Section 20(3)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was quashed. The petitioner directed to adhere to the Act.

Panchayat Development Officer Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 48112 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 48112 OF 2018 (L-MW)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GANTAWARAPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND MINIMUM WAGES AUTHORITY, DIVISION NO 2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU -560 076.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE LABOUR INSPECTOR, CHIKKABALLAPURA CIRCLE, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, BAGEPALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 562 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND MINIMUM WAGES AUTHORITY, DIVISION NO.2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-D UNDER THE FACTS AND

¶17

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOUDA T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 48112 of 2018

¶20

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.9.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE DISPUTE FILED BY THE R-2 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-D, by which, the petitioner is held liable to pay the difference of minimum wages in a sum of Rs.2,93,136/- to the 16 workers, and also imposed penalty on the difference of minimum wages in a sum of Rs.2,93,136/- under Section 20(3)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and consequently directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,86,272/-.

¶24

Sri S B Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in light of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, a sum of Rs.2,93,196/- is already paid to the 16 workers towards difference of minimum wages, and submits that, the penalty imposed on the difference of minimum wages may be quashed.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents would justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶26

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 48112 of 2018

¶29

In light of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.2,93,136/- to the 16 workers towards difference of minimum wages. The respondent No.1, without assigning any reason, has imposed one time penalty.

¶30

The petitioner having undertaken that, he shall adhere to payment of minimum wages to its employees, who have been appointed by Panchayaths, and shall not drive the employees of the Panchayaths to the Authority under the said Act seeking minimum wages, the penalty imposed under the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Writ petition stands allowed in part.

¶33

ii) The impugned order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-D insofar as it relates to imposing penalty amount of Rs.2,93,136/- is hereby quashed.

¶34

iii) The petitioner is directed to adhere to the provisions of the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to its employees.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Panchayat Development Officer v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Minimum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchayat Development Officer v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Minimum

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

Shankar Nayak H S Vs the Divisional Controller

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Venkatesha Murthy

Sri Manu L Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Ravi Kumar. C Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M/S Nanjappa Trust Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Gunashekar. N Vs Station House Officer