Allowed

S.a.Joyraja v. the Appellate Authority and Deputy Labour Commissioner

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022WP(C)/30364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner, a school chairman, challenged an order directed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to pay arrears and compensation to employees. The court set aside the impugned order because it was passed without hearing the petitioner during the enquiry process, violating the principle of audi alteram partem.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.02.2021 was set aside, the matter remanded to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for a fresh trial, and recovery proceedings stayed.

S.a.Joyraja Vs the Appellate Authority and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

S.A.JOYRAJA,
AGED 53 YEARS,

¶7

S/O S A RAJA, CHAIRMAN, THE RAJA'S INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
KURICHY MANDIRAM JUNCTION, NEAR HOMEO COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM,
RESIDING AT: 8/90, RAJBAVAN II NAGEKOIL TOWN,
AGASTHEESWARAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, PIN-629702.

¶8

BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948),
OFFICE OF DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM,
ETTUMANOOR, PIN-686562.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, CHENGANASSERY, PIN-686102.

¶12

3THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
CHENGANASSERY TALUK, PIN-686102.

¶13

BY ADV.

¶14

SMT.RASHMI K.M., SR.GP.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioner is the chairman of an unaided school named Raja’s International School, Kurichi Village, Kottayam with CBSE syllabus established in the year 2017 under a trust called ‘Joshua Educational & Charitable Trust’. On 27.02.2018 the second respondent Assistant Labour Officer, Chenganassery alleged to have conducted an inspection and found that certain provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act and Minimum Wages Act were not complied with and communicated an order dated 27.02.2018 Ext.P1 to rectify the defects and produce the registers and records on 19.03.2018. Thereafter, without hearing the petitioner, issued a notice dated 11.05.2018 intimating th e decision to file a claim petition before the competent Court i.e., under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, of not making the payment to seventeen(17) employees as per the schedule of the Minimum Wages Act.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -3-

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the complaint as MWA No.10 of 2018 was filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kottayam. On receipt of the notice petitioner appeared and submitted that all the arrears of the wages to three employees have been paid. The Deputy Labour Commissioner ordered for an enquiry and submission of report. Enquiry report, at the back of petitioner, w as submitted on 19.08.2019 resulting into the impugned order dated 04.02.2021. Petitioner preferred a review against the same but it was also dismissed bein g barred by the limitation. Even a show cause notice was issued for non compliance of the order as per the provisions of Section 20(5)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There were certain errors on the record as the petitioner was not heard though the provisions of the Act do not provide any applicability of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, but the principle laid down necessitated

¶21

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -4-

¶22

the petitioner to fil e the petition, for, the p etitioner was never associated in the alleged enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer nor the copy of the report dated 19.08.2019 was ever supplied.

¶23

Issue notice before admission. Learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Rashmi K.M. accepts notice on behalf of respondents and submitted that there is no provisions in the Act or the Kerala Wages Rules for filing of the review. If at all any application is filed then as per the provisions of Rule 33(4) of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules 1 958., it has to be filed within one month, whereas the review application was filed on 30.04.2021, after the expiry of one month from the date of the order dated 04.02.2021 Ext.P3.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶25

It would be apt to extract the relevant portion of the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The

¶26

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -5-

¶27

same reads as under:

¶28

“3. Notice was issued to both the parties in accordance with law asking them to appear before this authority and both parties had appeared. The opposite party appeared and submitted that they have paid the arrears of wages to three employees. In pursuance to the said submission the applicant was instructed to confirm the payment after enquiry and to submit report. Thereafter the applicant filed an enquiry report on 19.8.19. But it is reported that they have not paid the arrears of wages. Hence it was prayed to direct the opposite party to make the payment.

¶29

Thereupon the applicant filed Proof Affidavit instead of oral proof. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked and evidence of the applicant was closed. The opposite party has not filed any evidence. Applicant has sought a prayer through Exhibit A5 Claim Statement to give a direction to the opposite party to pay the amount due to the employees.

¶30

Application and all the exhibits marked were examined. Exhibit Al is the Inspection Order dated 27.2.2018 directing the opposite party to clear the violations found at the time of

¶31

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -6-

¶32

inspection. Exhibit A2 is the Schedule of the employees who were working in the establishment of the opposite party and the details of the wages. As per these documents is seen that all the eight employees are being paid wages less than the minimum wages stipulated in the law Exhibit A3 is the Show Cause Notice issued to the opposite party directing to pay the arrears of wages to the 8 employees. Exhibit A4 is the Acknowledgment Card in proof of receipt of A3 Show Cause Notice. Exhibit A5 is the detailed claim statement.

¶33

In the light of the above mentioned evidences it is found that as per Exhibit A5 the employees of the opposite parties are legally entitled to get the arrears of wages as per Minimum Wages Act and for compensation equivalent to the same as per Section 20(3)(i) of the Act. The arrears of wages to be paid to the employees and the amount to be paid as compensation is given in detail in the appendix given herein.

¶34

In the above circumstances it is hereby directed the opposite party to make payment of the arrears of wages for the period 8/17 to 01/18 along with the compensation amount, which comes to an amount of Rs.3,80,560/(Rupees Three lakhs Eighty Thousand Five

¶35

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -7-

¶36

Hundred Sixty Only) which is described in the appendix appended along with this within a period of 10 days on receipt of this order by the opposite party by way of Demand Draft payable to ‘Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kottayam’ and submit before this office. In case of failure to comply with this direction steps will be initiated to recover the said amount along with interest at the rate of -----% in view of the conditions stipulated under the Minimum wages Act 1948.”

¶37

On perusal of the above, it is evident that the petitioner had though appeared and alleged to have paid the arrears of the three employees, dissatisfied with the same, Labour Commissioner ordered the Inspector to hold an enquiry and then relied upon the report dated 19.08.2019. The tenor and mode of the order under challenge do not reflect that at any point of time, the petitioner was heard by the Enquiry Officer or the copy of the enquiry was ever supplied which gave a cause of action to file the review for rectifying the error. But the

¶38

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -8-

¶39

same, as noticed above, was rejected on the ground barred by limitation. Even if, the review was not maintainable the facts remains that the order Ext.P3 is also under challenge and do not conform to the principles of audi alteram partem or the story put forward by the petitioner, thus, the order is wholly aberrative, fallacious and arbitrary. Order dated 04.02.2021 is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The matter is relegated to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to try the complaint filed by the Inspector afresh in accordance with law in view of the observations made hereinabove. Till such time, the recovery proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioner are ordered to be kept in abeyance.

¶40

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶41

vv

¶42

WP(C) NO. 30364 OF 2022 -9-

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30364/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION ORDER` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED` `27.02.2018.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.05.2018 WITH` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `04.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE` `DATED 12.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED` `30.04.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF IA IN MWA NO.10/2018` `DATED 30.04.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE` `1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.05.2021 WITH` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE` `HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 10.01.2022`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY` `NOTICE DATED 01.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE` `3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH` `TRANSLATION.`

S.a.Joyraja v. the Appellate Authority and Deputy Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.a.Joyraja v. the Appellate Authority and Deputy Labour Commissioner

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

Abhilash.K.C., Vs the Deputy Excise Commissioner

Atlas Celestial Park Apartment Owners Association, Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala Transport Company Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sijin Vs State of Kerala

Tropical Health Foundation of India Vs the District Collector

Nanu Gopi (Ex.Ina) Vs Union of India