An intra-court appeal was filed challenging a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition against an Industrial Committee order. The Committee directed the security agency to pay compensation to workmen for non-payment of revised minimum wages. The court distinguished leading precedents and dismissed the appeal.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2017/16TH ASHADHA, 1939
WA.No. 204 of 2016 () IN WP(C).18261/2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18261/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-12-2015
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :
M/S. CAVALIER DETECTIVE SECURITY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, THOMPIL BUILDINGS, 3RD FLOOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM TELECOM, ERNAKULAM.
OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KENDRIYASHRAM SADAN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA R BY SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
W.A. No. 204 of 2016 ( ) ------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July 2017.
JUDGMENT
Dama Seshadri Naidu,J.
Cavalier Detective Security Services, the appellant-proprietary concern, runs a security agency, contractually employing ex-service men in establishments like the respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL) on their request. Here, Cavalier entered into Ext.P1 contract to employ security guards in BSNL, initially for one year, later extended for a few more years, beginning from2010.
wage revision and, eventually, paid the differential wages on
W.A. No.204/2016 -2-
30.09.2011. It also paid to the workmen the overtime wages on 01.03.2012, 02.03.2012, and other dates. But the Labour Enforcement Officer initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act.
W.A. No.204/2016 -3-
Hubli1 . He has made strenuous efforts to impress upon us that the Supreme Court in Athani has considered all aspects of the minimum Wages Act and has concluded that the authorities have no power to order the employer to pay compensation. Cut to the chase, Athani confines the authority's jurisdiction to its determining only the rates of wages. He has also submitted that the Courts have consistently followed the ratio of Athani in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd v. Chandi Lal Saha2 and other cases.
W.A. No.204/2016 -4-
issue in Athani is the jurisdictional scope of the Industrial Disputes Act in the backdrop of the Minimum Wages Act, which is declared to be more efficacious to grant relief on the issue raised in that case. Though the workmen are said to be the ultimate beneficiaries, they have not been made parties to the proceedings. Even the Ext.P5 judgment directs that the compensation be paid to the workmen.
“20. Claims.—(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Labour Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as stipendiary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear
W.A. No.204/2016
-5-
and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 or of wages at the overtime rate under Section 14, to employees employed or paid in that area.
(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner, or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under sub-section (3):
Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amount] became payable:
Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.
(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer or give them an opportunity of being heard and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary may without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct –
(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess;
W.A. No.204/2016
-6-
(ii) in any other case the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit not exceeding ten rupees;
and the authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application.”
(emphasis added)
than the minimum rates of wages, and later if a claim arises because of that deficit wages, the authority can direct the employer to pay the deficit amount along with penalty as compensation “not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess.” Here, the authority, in his wisdom, has restrained himself from inflicting any financial injury on the employer. He has, in fact, directed the employer to pay 50% of the differential amount, that is half of one-time differential wages.
W.A. No.204/2016
-7-
(a) Should the workmen have applied under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, instead of invoking the Industrial Disputes Act?
(b) To have their grievance redressed under Section 20 (3) of the Minimum Wages Act, do the workmen still have their claims unaffected by the statute of limitation?
W.A. No.204/2016
-8-
a general enactment: the labour court’s jurisdiction stands excluded.
W.A. No.204/2016 -9-
rates, the workmen can invoke the authority’s aid under Section 20(1). Indeed, the Supreme Court has held if there is no dispute about the rates of wages, the Minimum Wages Act has no role to play.
W.A. No.204/2016
-10-
that the workmen’s claims were payable at a rate different from the rates claimed by them.
W.A. No.204/2016
-11-
the authority appointed under that provision of law is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relate to the rates of wages, rates for payment for work done on days of rest and over time rates. If there be any dispute on rates between the employer and the employee, Section 20(1) would be attracted. The purpose of Section 20(1) must be to ensure that the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are complied with by the employer in making payments, and if any attempt is made to make payments at lower rates, the workers are given the right to invoke the aid of the authority appointed under Section 20(1).
W.A. No.204/2016
-12-
only to rates of wages and the disputes about their denial. It has, the Division Bench reckoned, held that the concurrent jurisdiction of cognate enactments is permissible—in fact, prevalent, too.
The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the appellant has sought an alternative relief in the writ petition: 42014 (4) KLT 2281
W.A. No.204/2016
-13-
that the principal employer, the BSNL, be directed to pay compensation awarded in Ext.P12. We clarify that if the law permits, the appellant may realise the amounts from any entity as it desires.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
Rv
W.A. No.204/2016 -14-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act empowers the authority to direct an employer to pay compensation for lapses in paying revised minimum wages.
Whether the binding precedent in Athani confines the Minimum Wages Act authority's jurisdiction solely to disputes regarding the rate of wages rather than enforcement of payment.
Whether this intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition deserves interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Town Municipal Council, Athani v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, HubliDistinguished¶33
1969 (1) SCC 873 · Who else cites this
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd v. Chandi Lal SahaReferred¶34
1991 Supp (2) SCC 465 · Who else cites this
State of Jharkhand v. Nirmal SinghRelied on¶83
ILJ 345 (2005) II LLJ 345 (Jhar)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. CAVALIER DETECTIVE SECURITY SERVICES
BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
