Partly allowed

M/S.Hemambka Chitties & Loans Pvt.Ltd v. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Kerala HC3 Oct 2011WP(C)/865/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner to pay five times the arrears of minimum wages as compensation. The Court held that the interim order payment of Rs. 50,000 suffices as compensation and modified the impugned order accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Ext.P3 order is modified to the extent that the Rs. 50,000 paid as per the interim order is held as sufficient compensation for non-payment of minimum wages.

M/S.Hemambka Chitties & Loans Pvt.Ltd Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 865 of 2007(C) -----------------------PETITIONER(S): --------------M/S.HEMAMBIKA CHITTIES & LOANS PVT.LTD., 31/361, ENNAKKOTTIL STREET, BIG BAZAR, PALAKKAD.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): --------------1. THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948 (THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THRISSUR.

¶7

2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD.

¶8

3. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.C.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, SREE SATYAM, ETANUR P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶9

4. C.JAYENDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, SREE VALSAM, VIDYA NAGAR, PIRYARI P.O., PALAKKAD. 5. SURENDRAN UNNI, S/O.VISWANATHAN NAIR, UPASANA, MURINJAMALA, VEMBALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶10

6. K.B.ANIL DUTT, S/O.K.V.BALAKRISHNAN, KAKKOTTIL HOUSE, THENUR P.O., PARLI, PALAKKAD.

¶11

7. SINDHU P.NAIR, W/O.REGHUNATH, NANDANAM, 8/855, KAVITHA NAGAR, KARIHARAPULLY P.O., KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶12

8. NANDA KUMAR, S/O.LATE NAGAPPA MOHAN, KAVITHA, AMRITA NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶13

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1 & 2

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP.C.NO.865/2007

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.W.A NO.9/1998.

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/5/2006 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 865 of 2007

¶29

==================

¶30

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2011

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The employer in M.W.A.No.9/1998 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner is the petitioner herein. On a finding that for ten workers, the petitioner did not pay minimum wages, by Ext.P3 order, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, directed the petitioner to pay arrears of minimum wages amounting to ` 22,002.35 along with compensation of five times the arrears due. The petitioner is challenging that part of Ext.P3 order, wherein compensation of five times the arrears due has been ordered to be paid.

¶33

The contention of the petitioner is that under sub section 2 of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, compensation is payable only if the arrears of minimum wages payable exceed the amounts actually paid. According to the petitioner, in view of the said provision, the direction to pay five times the amounts as compensation is against the provision.

¶34

The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting

¶35

the impugned order.

¶36

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶37

At the time of admission, the following order was passed on 9.1.2007:

¶38

¶39

“There will be stay against enforcement of Ext.P3 order on condition that petitioner will make payment of arrears of wages of Rs.22,002.35 and along with it rupees fifty thousand to be paid proportionately to all the beneficiaries within two weeks from now, failing which full amount will be recovered under R.R proceedings. Second respondent will verify and report compliance.”

¶40

Although belatedly, the petitioner has complied with the conditions of the interim order.

¶41

In order to sustain the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner has to necessarily show that the amount paid by the petitioner to the employees is more than the arrears of minimum wages payable. The petitioner has not anywhere stated as to the amounts paid by the petitioner. As such, I am unable to consider the contention of the petitioner in this regard. However, taking a lenient view, I dispose of this writ petition holding that the amount of ` 50,000/- paid as per the interim order shall be taken as sufficient compensation for nonpayment of minimum wages. To that extent, Ext.P3 shall stand modified.

¶42

sdk+

¶43

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶44

///True copy///

¶45

P.A. to Judge

M/S.Hemambka Chitties & Loans Pvt.Ltd v. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Hemambka Chitties & Loans Pvt.Ltd v. Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

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

M/S Customer Line (P) Ltd. Vs M/S. Tata Communication Ltd.

Usha Vs Tata Motors Ltd.and Others

M/S.Gsk Engineers Vs M/S.Bbipl Infrastructure(India) Pvt.Ltd.

Benoy P.Eapen Vs Districty Educational Officer,Kottayam

E.R.Sabu Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

P.K.Mohanakumaran Nair Vs Khadi and Village Industries Board