Dismissed
C.P.Dhanesh v. the Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act
Kerala HCWP(C)/12088/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 12088 of 2012 (I)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MWA.4/2011 of COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION, PALAKKAD.
PETITIONER:
C.P.DHANESH S/O C.M.PRABHAKARAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR
HOTEL INDRAPRASTHA, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI G. GOPAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.12088/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE M.W.A. BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 14/11/2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 APPLICATION.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN M.W.A.NO.4/2011 TO EXT.P2 OBJECTION. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/4/2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
W.P.(C).NO.12088 OF 2012
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5 order passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation is under challenge. The applicant is the Assistant Labour Officer, 3rd Circle, Palakkad. The Assistant Labour Officer filed an application under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the opposite party for payment of difference in minimum wages to 68 workmen for the period of 2/10 to 7/10. According to the applicant, 68 workmen were not paid the minimum wages prescribed in the minimum wages notification. The application was not filed within the time prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There was a delay of 326 days in filing the application. Hence, the application was supported by a petition to condone the delay in filing the application. The Assistant Labour Officer claimed a sum of `70,51,370/- as arrear wages payable to 68 workers by the opposite party. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation examined in detail the reasons stated in
-2-
W.P.(C).No.12088/2012
the petition for condonation of delay and found that there are sufficient reasons for not preferring the application within the time prescribed under the statute. The Commissioner also found that there is no wilful delay in filing the application. The delay petition was allowed on being satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. The petitioner, who is the opposite party before the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, has not made out any valid ground for interference with the order under challenge.
Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.
kcv.
P. THOMAS
AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT
HARUN-UL-RASHID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court