Allowed

Management of v. Sri. K.S. Nanjundaswamy

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024WP/47082/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a Labour Authority's decision condoning an employee's delayed claim for unpaid minimum wages under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, filed nine years after the amounts became payable. The court held the delay condonation unsustainable in law, as claims must be filed within six months absent sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the Labour Officer (Authority under the Minimum Wages Act) was quashed by writ of certiorari; petition allowed.

Management of Vs Sri. K.S. Nanjundaswamy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25477 WP No. 47082 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 47082 OF 2015 (L-PW)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MANAGEMENT OF

¶9

WATERJET ENGINEERS, PB NO.50, THOGARIBANKLE BUILDING, I.G.ROAD, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. D.H.NATARAJ, AGED: 55 YEARS.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H.N.MANJUNATH PARSAD., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . SRI. K.S.NANJUNDASWAMY

¶14

S/O K.N.SRIKANTAIAH, MAJOR, SHANKARMUT ROAD, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN-573 201.

¶15

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

2 . LABOUR OFFICER AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA FOR R2;

¶20

NOTICE TO R1-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:22.02.2017)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:25477 WP No. 47082 of 2015

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Sri.H.N.Manjunath Pradad., learned for the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Yoganna., learned AGA for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶27

Emergent notice to the first respondent was ordered on 25.01.2016. A perusal of the daily order sheet reveals that notice to respondent No.1 was held sufficient vide order dated:27.02.2017. The first respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶28

The order dated:25.07.2012 passed by the second respondent is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶30

The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the order passed by the second respondent is that there

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:25477 WP No. 47082 of 2015

¶33

is an inordinate delay in filing the application claiming minimum wages.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the first respondent filed an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on 22.03.1997 claiming the minimum wages from January 1988 to 01.11.1995. He argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of nine years in filing the application.

¶35

Learned HCGP sought to justify the order passed by the first respondent.

¶36

The issue revolves around the claim with regard to the minimum wages. The contention of the first respondent is that his minimum wage rights have not been respected by the petitioner. Hence, he was constrained to file an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

¶37

Suffice it to note that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 provides effective legal remedies for employees whose minimum wage rights have not been respected, so that they can recover the unpaid amounts owed to them. Proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act provides that

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25477 WP No. 47082 of 2015

¶39

application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amounts became payable. It also provides that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

¶40

Reverting to the facts of the case, the first respondent moved an application claiming the minimum wages from January 1988 to 01.11.1995. It is pivotal to note that he filed application only in the year 1997. He contended that in view of verbal assurance, he could not file the application well in time. The Authority condoned the delay solely on the ground that the employee is not aware of the provisions of the law and the employee would be under the impression that the employer would have paid the minimum wages owed to him and hence he do not approach the Authority well in time. The reasons assigned to condone the delay are totally unsustainable in law. Since, the Section is very clear. Under the proviso to Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it is mandatory that any claim relating to non-payment of minimum wages has to be filed within six months from the date on which the minimum

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25477 WP No. 47082 of 2015

¶42

wages is payable. As already noted above, the first respondent contends that his minimum wage rights have not been respected from January 1988. However, he moves an application in the year 1997. There is an inordinate delay of nine years. Hence, the reasons assigned to condone the delay are not justified. The claim is barred by time.

¶43

To conclude I can say only this much that the effective legal remedies are provided under the statute. The workers concerned should avail these remedies well in time.

¶44

For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶45

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:25.07.2012 passed by the second respondent in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt

¶46

¸ÀASÉå:-PÀ.ªÉÃ.PÁ-04/1997 vide Annexure-C is quashed.

¶47

12. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶48

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

Management of v. Sri. K.S. Nanjundaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Management of v. Sri. K.S. Nanjundaswamy

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

The Management of Vs Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs H T Basavaraj

The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Sri C N Amaresh

The Commissioner Vs Swamy

Cargill Business Services India Private Limited Vs Government of Karnataka

The Managing Director Vs G Anand Since Deceased by His Lrs.