Disposed

T.P.S.Builders v. Regional Labour Commissioner(Central)

Kerala HC26 May 2016WP(C)/12961/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court set aside an order computing minimum wages under Section 20(3) due to a long-pending stay order. The court clarified that Section 20(3) is not inapplicable merely due to lack of a private employee complaint, as Section 20(2) empowers Inspectors to initiate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act is set aside without prejudice to the Labour Enforcement Officer filing a fresh application.

T.P.S.Builders Vs Regional Labour… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.12961 of 2007 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

T.P.S.BUILDERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, 1/F, JAMAL JEMS, NO.6 & 7, PC HOSTEL ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI-31.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

SRI.MANU GOVIND.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), (AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT), KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30.

¶12

LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

W.P.(C) NO.12961 OF 2007-R

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.06.2006 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL.

vku/-

[true copy]

K. Vinod Chandran, J

---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.12961 of 2007-R

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P1 order passed under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. By the above order, the authority computed the minimum wages and compensation payable to the workmen and on the basis of actual payment, directed payment of further amounts to the workmen. The petitioner challenges the same as being totally without jurisdiction, since there was no complaint made by any of the employees.

¶29

It is pertinent that the above writ petition was

¶30

admitted on 13.04.2007 and an interim stay of Exhibit P1 was granted. Till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. Exhibit P1 also shows the applicant to be the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Cochin. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani

¶31

WP(C) No.12961 of 2007 - 2 -

¶32

v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli [1970 (1) SCR 51 =

¶33

AIR 1969 SC 1335], wherein it was held so:

¶34

“The power under S.20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act given to the Authority dealing with an application under S.20(1) to direct payment of the actual amount found due is only an incidental power for working out effectively the directions u/S.20(1) fixing various rates under the Act. That is, if there is no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employee and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate is due or not, then S.20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attracted at all, and the appropriate remedy would only be either under S.15 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act”.

¶35

The interpretation sought to be placed on the

¶36

above declaration is that there can be no proceedings under section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, unless there is a complaint by the employee. This court is of the opinion that the understanding is wrong and the above extracted paragraph does not offer such a conclusion. What is specifically stated is that any dispute as to the rights, between the employer and employee could be agitated under Section 20(1). What is declared to be not coming under the above provision is only a

¶37

WP(C) No.12961 of 2007 - 3 -

¶38

question as to whether a particular payment at the agreed rate

¶39

is due to the employee or not.

¶40

Here there is a dispute as to the rates between

¶41

the employer and employee. This need not necessarily be taken up by the employee himself. A reading of Section 20 (2) would clearly show that an Inspector under the Act would also be empowered to make an application before the authority for a direction under sub-section (3) of Section 20. A reading of exhibit P1 would indicate that it is an application made by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Kochi. The dispute raised is also whether the employees under the management have been paid the minimum wages as notified by the State under the Act. In that view of the matter there cannot be any default found in the proceedings initiated or the order passed.

¶42

However it is to be noticed that the writ petition

¶43

was pending before this court for the last 9 years and there was a interim order of stay of the impugned order. In such circumstance it would be appropriate that a de-novo proceedings be carried out. On a verification of the registers maintained by the employer/petitioner, the Labour Enforcement Officer would also be entitled to decide on whether the

¶44

WP(C) No.12961 of 2007 - 4 -

¶45

employer would be liable to make good the difference in wages for the retrospective period starting from the date on which the violation was noticed at the earlier instance.

¶46

It is made clear that Exhibit P1 order has been

¶47

set aside by this court only for the reasons noticed above and this court has not looked into the merits of the matter at all. On an application being submitted by the Labour Enforcement Officer, in accordance with Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, necessarily the authority would decide the question as to whether any order or direction under sub-section (3) of Section 20 is to be made.

¶48

With the above reservation the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶50

vku/-

¶51

[ true copy ]

T.P.S.Builders v. Regional Labour Commissioner(Central)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.S.Builders v. Regional Labour Commissioner(Central)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.B.Charitable Society Vs Bharanikkavu Grama Panchayath

Bijo J. Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Poojary Vs State of Kerala

Linto V.C. Vs v.S.Senthil IAS

Purushothaman C.P Vs K.K.Jalan

Thankappan P.K. Vs the Secretary, Valokom Grama Panchayat