Dismissed

Dhanesh.C.P. v. the Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019WA/519/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the condonation of a 326-day delay in filing an application under the Minimum Wages Act. The bench held that since the deficiency was detected during an inspection and the condonation was issued by the authority on valid grounds, the original application was rightly allowed. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal against the condonation of delay dismissed; proceedings to be completed.

Dhanesh.C.P. Vs the Authority Under the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.519 OF 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.12088/2012 DATED 04-12-2012 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

DHANESH.C.P., AGED 49 YEARS S/O. C.M.PRABHAKARAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOTEL INDRAPRASTHA, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD, PIN:678 001.

¶14

2 THE ASST. LABOUR OFFICER PALAKKAD, PIN:678 001.

¶15

BY SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.519 OF 2013

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court alleging that there was no ground to condone the delay of 326 days in filing the application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [for brevity, 'the Act of 1948']. There was in fact an application for condonation of delay filed by the Labour Officer, which was allowed by the authority under the Act of 1948. It is against the said condonation allowed by the authority that the original petition is filed.

¶22

2. It is the contention of the applicant that after six months from the date on which the minimum wages became due, there could be no application filed. For such an application to be entertained, the authority has to first satisfy itself that the delay was occasioned for valid

¶23

WA.No.519 OF 2013

¶24

¶25

reason. There is absolutely no reason stated, is the contention raised.

¶26

3. In this context, we have to notice Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948, which speaks of a claim under Section 20(1) by the employee himself, a legal practitioner, an official of a registered trade union or any inspector or any person acting with the permission of the authority. In the present case the Assistant Labour Officer has filed the claim on the basis of the inspection conducted

¶27

on 31.08.2010. The claim is for the period from February, 2010 to July, 2010. The Assistant Labour Officer fully realising that the claim arose from

¶28

February, 2010 filed a delay condonation application. The claim under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948 was instituted on 31.01.2011 as is seen at Ext.P1. It is clear that the deficiency in payment of wages was detected in the inspection on 31.08.2010. The Assistant Labour Officer had

¶29

WA.No.519 OF 2013 4

¶30

examined the records and had found that there was deficient payment from February, 2010 onwards. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the authority was right in recording satisfaction and condoning the delay that was occasioned.

¶31

We dismiss the writ appeal making it clear

¶32

that the proceedings if not completed by reason only of the pendency of the writ appeal, then the same shall be taken up and completed within a reasonable time after issuing notice to the employer. Parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.

¶37

sp/02/12/19

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

P.A. To Judge

Dhanesh.C.P. v. the Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh.C.P. v. the 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

The Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, Vs Anilkumar P.J.

Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary Vs v.a.Mathew

Omar Shereef.K.B Vs State of Kerala

N.R.Murali Vs Johnson P. John

M.K.Sita Vs State of Kerala

The Homeo Medical Officer Vs Unnimalu M.K.