Allowed

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2016WP(C)/1377/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the Kerala State Beverages Corporation's challenge to the Human Rights Commission's order directing payment of minimum wage arrears to part-time sweepers. It directed the Corporation to adjudicate the exact hours worked by employees and pay enhanced amounts based on available records within six months.

What did the court decide?

Corporation directed to verify records, adjudicate hours worked by individual sweepers, and pay enhanced wage arrears within six months.

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1377 of 2015 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED

¶8

P.B.NO.2263, SASTHRAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, MR.JOHN JOSEPH.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TURBOPLUS TOWER, PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶14

3. ANEESH P.A. PALATHARA VEEDU, CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 020.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.S.LETHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 1377 of 2015 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

--------- EXT.P1.	-------------- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT H.R.M.P. NO.6198/14 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, A COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P2.	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/7/2014 IN HRMP NO.6198/2014.
EXT.P3.	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 8/8/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P4.	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2014 IN H.R.M.P NO.6198/2014.
EXT.P5.	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 26/9/2014.
EXT.P6.	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2014 IN H.R.M.P. NO.6198/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P7.	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2014 IN H.R.M.P. NO.6198/2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

===================== W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2015 - V

¶27

====================== Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The respondent Corporation has challenged Ext.P7

¶30

order of the Kerala Human Rights Commission, which directed

¶31

payment of minimum wages to the Part-Time Sweepers employed in the Corporation from 2010, from the date of notification enhancing the wages from Rs.20/- to Rs.36/- in Panchayath area and Rs.40/- in Municipal area, per hour. By

¶32

the impugned order, the Human Rights Commission had directed the Corporation to pay the arrears from the date of notification.

¶33

The Corporation submits that first of all, a third

¶34

party could not have taken up the cause of the employees.

¶35

W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2015 - V

¶36

¶37

Further it is contended that there would be factual adjudication required as to the days and hours, in which a particular employee was engaged, without which no arrears could be paid.

¶38

In the context of the employees, whose cause was agitated before the Human Rights Commission, being a part of the marginalised section of society, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention that a social worker could not have agitated the cause of the said emploees. With respect to factual adjudication, necessarily, this Court has to concede to the arguments raised by the learned Standing Counsel. In such circumstance, the individual sweepers, who were employed between 2010 and 2014 shall submit individual representations before their controlling authority, who shall look into the same and after adjudicating the exact hours spent on duty, shall pay arrears in accordance with the notification of enhanced rate. The petitioner Corporation shall

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2015 - V

¶40

¶41

intimate all its officers to comply with the directions of this Court, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The individual sweepers would be entitled to make such representations, within a period of one month. The Corporation is directed to furnish a notice in the notice board of all its offices, calling for such representations, within one month from the date of such publication. The Corporation would verify its records and grant the enhanced amounts only in accordance with the records available with the Corporation.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶43

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

SB/27/06/2016

¶45

// true copy //

¶46

P.A to Judge.

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited v. State of Kerala

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

T.A Rajamma Vs Smt. M.S Jaya

Cochin Port Employees Sangh Vs Cochin Post Trust

Trivandrum Sarvodaya Sangh Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Bright Line English Medium School Vs State of Kerala

Creccs Canteen Employees Union Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Centra

Shahina Kanhirala Vs Kerala State Election Commission