The Chief Executive Officer Vs Smt Papamma

THIS WP IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 20(6A) OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2019 IN NO.SaKaaAaBE-3/KA VeKA/CR-79/2017 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

With the consent of learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, the petition is heard on admission.

¶32

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru, under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:10937 WP No. 24097 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

(for short 'Act, 1948'). In terms of the impugned order, the claim of the contesting respondents was allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,27,605/- to five daily wagers, who worked in Social Forestry Department, Kolar and Mulbagilu Division.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate would

¶38

urge that, the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioners and that the respondents being the daily wagers, are not entitled to the relief claimed.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 would urge that, notice was duly issued to the petitioners and petitioners did not appear and contest the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru.

¶40

It is also urged that the impugned order is passed under the provisions of the Act, 1948, after taking into consideration the minimum wages payable to the daily wagers in terms of the Government notification.

¶41

This Court has considered the contentions urged at the Bar and perused the material on record.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:10937 WP No. 24097 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

It is to be noticed that, in the impugned order it is specifically recorded that notice is served on the petitioners. However, the petitioners did not choose to appear before the authority to dispute the claim of the contesting respondents.

¶46

The Court has gone through the averments made in the writ petition. The status of the contesting respondents as daily wagers is not specifically disputed. It is also to be noticed that Annexures - B, C and D to the impugned order, which reflect the names of the contesting respondents, the duration for which they worked, and the wages paid to them, are not disputed in the writ petition.

¶47

From the Annexures to the impugned order, it is apparent that the wages payable under the Act, 1948 are not paid and that the wages paid, are less than the minimum wages payable under the Act, 1948.

¶48

This being the position, the Court is of the view that no error is found in the order passed by the authority, particularly when the claim made by the contesting respondents is not disputed before the authority.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:10937 WP No. 24097 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Even before this Court, the status of the contesting

¶53

respondents as daily wagers for the relevant period, for which they claimed minimum wages, is not disputed.

¶54

It is also noticed that, the authority has taken note of the delay of about 11 years in making the claim for payment of minimum wages. The authority has granted the relief only for a period of three years, as against the claim made for 11 years.

¶55