Allowed

Saji K.M. v. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022WP(C)/4581/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order under the Minimum Wages Act. Finding the matter requires merit scrutiny and maintainability arguments, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Authority to reconsider the matter after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order set aside; direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Saji K.M. Vs Labour Enforcement Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4581 OF 2012

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SAJI K.M.
AGED 40 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.RELIABLE MANPOWER SERVICES, NEAR
PRASANTH HOTEL, NANTHANCODE ROAD, PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶7

BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 012.

¶10

2 THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948 &AMP; REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), COCHIN 682 030.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
MANU S., DSG OF INDIA
SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIRASG OF INDIA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 4581 OF 2012

¶15

¶16

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

=====================

¶18

W.P.(C).No. 4581 of 2012

¶19

=====================

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of December 2022

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶23

“ i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing Exhibit P3 order as arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and unjust.

¶24

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, forbearing the 2nd respondent from entertaining or proceeding with Exhibit P1 application.

¶25

Iii. To declare that the 2nd respondent is not an authority to decide the claims put forward in Exhibit P1 application.

¶26

iv. To issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (SIC)

¶27

The 1^st respondent filed Ext.P1 application before the 2^nd respondent against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of

¶28

the Minimum Wages Act. It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P1 application, the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext.P2 summons to the petitioner, directing him to appear

¶29

WP(C) NO. 4581 OF 2012

¶30

¶31

before the 2^nd respondent on 24.01.2012 at 10.00 a.m. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without giving adequate opportunity to contest the matter, the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order on 31.01.2012. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned DSGI.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in this writ petition.

¶34

The learned DSGI takes me through the counter affidavit filed and submitted that sufficient opportunity was given. The learned DSGI also takes me through Ext.R1(g) in which the signature of petitioner is also there.

¶35

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that, Ext.P3 order is passed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. This writ petition is pending before this Court from 2012 onwards. A perusal of Ext.P3 shows that it was an order passed on 31.01.2012. The notice of 1^st appearance in Ext.P2 was on 24.01.2012. There is a

¶36

WP(C) NO. 4581 OF 2012

¶37

¶38

grievance to the petitioner that sufficient opportunity was not given. The petitioner has got a case that the proceedings itself is not maintainable. In the facts and circumstances, I think, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to contest the case on merit and also to raise the maintainablity issue. The learned counsel also relied the judgment of Apex Court in Lingegowd Dictative and Security Chamber Pvt.Ltd v. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd (2006 (2) KLT 768) and submitted that the establishment providing security person to various organizations is not a scheduled employment as defined in scheduled. I think, these are points to be raised before the authority concerned and I don’t want to make any observations on merit.

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner;

¶40

Ext.P3 is set aside.

¶41

The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the

¶42

matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶43

All contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ

¶44

WP(C) NO. 4581 OF 2012

¶45

¶46

petition are left open and the petitioner is free to file statement, if any also, before the 2^nd respondent.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

¶49

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶50

WP(C) NO. 4581 OF 2012

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4581/2012

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶54

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED05.12.2011ALONGWITHITS
ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
27.12.2011.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 31.01.2012.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P (C) NO.
2169/2010 DATED 22.01.2010.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02.07.2011
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
18.09.2008.

¶55

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :

¶56

ANNEXURE -R1 (A):TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT
BEARING NO.26(148)/2011-LEO/TVM DATED
21.6.11 ALONG WITH AN ANNEXURE.
ANNEXURE- R1(B):TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CARD.
ANNEXURE R1 (C):TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 20(1) OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
ANNEXURE R1(D):TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION UNDER
SEC.20(2) OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948
ANNEXURE R1 (E):TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 23.1.2012 OF THE
PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R1 (F):TRUE COPY OF THE SELF ATTESTED COPY OF
DEED OF AGREEMENT DATED 1.4.11
ANNEXURE R1(G):TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE
PETITIONERTHROUGHHISAUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE DATED 24.11.2012.

¶57

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Saji K.M. v. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji K.M. v. Labour Enforcement Officer (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

M/S. Zafodo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Drugs Inspector

M/S.Sarabhai Institute of Science & Tech Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Dr.Deepu.S. Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Navas Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited

K.G.Purushothaman Vs the K.S.E.Board & Another

Rajendran Nair Vs State of Kerala