Allowed

The Deputy Conservator of Forest v. Sri C N Amaresh

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WP/7586/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by the Deputy Conservator of Forest challenging an Assistant Labour Commissioner's order condoning delay and allowing daily wage employees' claim for minimum wages from 1998 to 2006 filed in 2016. The High Court held the proviso to Section 20(2) mandatorily requires filing within six months and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari ordered; order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Annexure-A) quashed.

The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Sri C N… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25198 WP No. 7586 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 7586 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, KOLAR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. C.N.AMARESH AND 34 OTHERS C/O M.KHADER BHASHA, PRESIDENT, DAILY WAGE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT DIVISION, KOLAR, C/O TPS QUARTERS, CHINTHAMANI-563 125.

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DIVISION-3, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(NOTICE TO R1-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:23.10.2021; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:25198 WP No. 7586 of 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri.Y.P.Yoganna., learned AGA for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶23

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 28.01.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondents are served and unrepresented. The respondents have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶24

The order dated:06.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶25

Learned AGA has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶26

The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is that there is an inordinate delay in filing the application claiming minimum wages.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25198 WP No. 7586 of 2020

¶28

Learned AGA 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 19.05.2016 claiming the minimum wages from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2006. He argued by saying that there is an inordinate delay of eighteen years in filing the application.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 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

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25198 WP No. 7586 of 2020

¶32

the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

¶33

Reverting to the facts of the case, the first respondent moved an application claiming the minimum wages from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2006. It is pivotal to note that he filed application only in the year 2016. He contended that he could not file the application well in time. Hence, he sought for condonation of delay. The Authority condoned the delay solely on the ground that the payment of minimum wages is a beneficial legislation. 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 wages is payable. As already noted above, the first respondent contends that his minimum wage rights have not been respected from 1998. However, he moves an application in the year 2016. There is an inordinate delay of eighteen years. Hence, the reasons assigned to condone the delay are not justified. The claim is barred by time.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:25198 WP No. 7586 of 2020

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:06.06.2019 passed by the second respondent in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt

¶39

¸ÀASÉå:¸ÀPÁD¨ÉA-3/PÀªÉÃPÁ/¹Dgï-39/2017 vide Annexure-A is quashed.

¶40

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MRP

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

The Deputy Conservator of Forest v. Sri C N Amaresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Conservator of Forest v. Sri C N Amaresh

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

Raksha Management and Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs All India Trade Union Congress Reg

Omkar Offset Printers Vs All India Trade Union Congress (Reg)

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S Manjunatha

The Management of Vs Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs H T Basavaraj

All India Trade Union Congress Vs State of Karnataka