Mithra Megha Mart v. Deputy Labour Commissioner (Authority under the Minimum Wages Act), Ernakulam

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 8352 OF 2010`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MITHRA MEGHA MART CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE, MITHRA AGRICULTURAL, PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY PO, ERNAKULAM 682 024. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.C.KRISHNA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT), ERNAKULAM. 2THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR.II 2ND CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` 0 SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8398/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -2- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, ``` ## **`1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 8398 OF 2010`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MITHRA MEGHA MART REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,, MITHRA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,, JOMER SREENILAYAM, DH ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.T.C.KRISHNA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT),, ERNAKULAM. 2THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GR.II 2ND CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` 0 SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).8352/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 ============================================================= Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner is a retail out let of Mithra Agricultural Produced Company Ltd., which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is formed under the initiative of Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., with the objective of supporting and helping the agricultural/primary producers, especially in the rural areas by establishing a marketing system to market their agricultural and allied products. The outlets have been registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the service conditions and wages of -4- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 the employees are fixed as agreed between the parties. The 2[nd] respondent in these two writ petitions filed Ext.P1 application before the 1[st] respondent alleging that the employees are paid less than the minimum wages. The petitioner filed preliminary objection contending that Ext.P1 application is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in **Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and Others (1969 KHC 475)** . The 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P4 order found that Ext.P1 application is maintainable. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 produced in these two writ petitions, these writ petitions are filed. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of **Town Municipal Council case** (supra), Ext.P1 application is not maintainable before the 1[st] respondent. It will -5- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 ## be better to extract the relevant paragraph in **Town Municipal Council case** (supra). _“ We have mentioned these provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, because the language used at all stages in that Act leads to the clear inference that that Act is primarily concerned with fixing of rates-rates of minimum wages, overtime rates, rate for payment for work on a day of rest-and is not really intended to be an Act for enforcement of payment of wages for which provision is made in other laws, such as the Payment of Wages Act No. 4 of 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947. In s. 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act also, provision is made for seeking remedy in respect of claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates, of wages or in respect of 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. This language used in s. 20(1) shows that the Authority appointed under that provision of law is to exercise jurisdiction for deciding claims which relate to rates of wages, rates for payment of work done on days of rest and overtime rates. If there be no dispute as to rates between the employer and the employees, section 20(1) would not be attracted. The purpose of s. 20(1) seems to 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_ -6- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 _made to make payments at lower rates, the workmen are given the right to invoke the aid of the Authority appointed under s. 20(1). In cases where there is no dispute as to rates of wages, and the only question is whether a particular payment at the agreed rate in respect of minimum wages, overtime or work on offdays is due to a workman or not, the appropriate remedy is provided in the Payment of Wages Act. If the payment is withheld beyond the time permitted by the Payment of Wages Act even on the ground that the amount claimed by the workman is not due, or if the amount claimed by the workman is not paid on the ground that deductions are to be made by the employer, the employee can seek his remedy by an application under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. In cases where section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act may not provide adequate remedy, the remedy can be sought either under section 33C of the Act or by raising an industrial dispute under the Act and having it decided under the various provisions of that Act. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant that s. 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act should be interpreted as intended to cover all claims in respect of minimum wages or overtime payment or payment for days of rest even though there may be no dispute as to the rates at which those payments are to be claimed. It is true that, under s. 20(3), power is given to the Authority dealing with an application under s. 20(1) to direct payment of the actual amount found due; but_ -7- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 _this, it. appears to us, is only an incidental power granted to that Authority, so that the directions made by the Authority under s. 20(1) may be effectively carried out and there may not be unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The power to make orders for payment of actual amount due to an employee under s. 20(3) cannot, therefore, be interpreted as indicating that the jurisdiction to the Authority under s. 20(1) has been given for the purpose of enforcement of payment of amounts and not for the purpose of ensuring compliance by the employer with the various rates fixed under that Act. This interpretation, in our opinion, also harmonises the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act which was already in existence when the Minimum Wages Act was passed. In the present appeals, therefore, we have to see whether the claims which were made by the workmen in the various applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act were of such a nature that they could have been brought before the Authority under s. 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act inasmuch as they raised disputes relating to the rates for payment of overtime and for work done on weekly off days.”_ 5. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v.** . **Chandi Lal Sadu (1991 KHC 272)** -8- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 6. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. The 1[st] respondent has not considered the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in a proper manner. In such circumstances, according to me, Ext.P4 can be set aside and there can be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 itself. The question of maintainability also can be considered while disposing of Ext.P1 application produced in these writ petitions. The 1[st] respondent will consider the applications based on the law in existence as on the date of filing of Ext.P1 applications. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner: 1. Ext.P4 in these two writ petitions are set aside. 2. The 1[st] respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 on merit, and pass appropriate orders in it. -9- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 3. At the time of consideration of Ext.P1, the question of maintainability also will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. 4. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in these writ petitions are left open. **sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** das -10- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8398/2010`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.07.08 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 10.12.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF COUNTER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 14/1/2009 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/8/09 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O(RT) NO.2267/97/LBR DATED 04.08.1997. Exhibit R2 (B)TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTE. ``` -11- W.P.(C) Nos. 8352 & 8398 of 2010 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8352/2010`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.07.08 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 10.12.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF COUNTER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 14.01.2009 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2 ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GO(ER)NO.2267/97/LBR DATED 04.08.2997. Exhibit R2 BTRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTE. ```