Secretary, Padippu K.S. Sangam LRD v. C. Varghese

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
Al Tamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2007-03-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The order of the Kerala High Court is set aside and the appellant-society’s claim is rejected; the respondent’s claim for minimum wages for the specified period is not payable under the Act for this employment. No costs. The amount already paid shall not be recovered.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Secretary, Padippu K.S. Sangam LRD

Respondents

C. Varghese

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. L. V. Iyer
• Subramonium Prasad
• Karun Mehta

Counsels for Respondents

• Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillai
• G. Ramakrishna Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

Secretary, Padippu K.S. Sangam LRD v. C. Varghese concerns whether a cooperative society’s activity of purchasing milk from its members and distributing it constitutes 'dairy farming' under the Minimum Wages Act, 1939. The appellant society collected milk and distributed it; a milk tester employed for two hours daily on a consolidated monthly salary claimed minimum wages. The Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed the claim; a Kerala High Court single judge held the Act not applicable since the employment was not 'dairy farming.' The Division Bench reversed, suggesting that distribution of milk by such a society could attract the Act. The Supreme Court expressed a narrow view: mere activity of buying milk from members and distributing it does not constitute 'dairy farming' when there is no rearing of milch cows or cultivation activity. It held the appellant-society is not engaged in any scheduled employment under the Act. It set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal, with a caveat that amounts already paid would not be recovered and no costs awarded. The judgment clarifies the interpretation of 'dairy farming' and limits the application of the Minimum Wages Act to such activities.

Provisions of Law Cited

Minimum Wages Act, 1939Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969Schedule II (Minimum Wages Act, 1939)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant society contends that its activities fall outside the scheduled employments under the Minimum Wages Act; mere purchase of milk from members and distribution does not amount to 'dairy farming' as there is no rearing of milch cows or agricultural activity. The Division Bench’s extension of the Act to routine distribution is unwarranted; the absence of farming activity means the employment should not be brought under the Act.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argues that sale and distribution of milk by a society can be part of the dairy farming process and hence would attract the Act’s coverage, despite lack of cattle ownership by the society; the milk tester’s wages should be subject to minimum wage requirements under the Act.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

• ~ SECRETARY, PADIPPU K.S. SANGAM LRD . _v._ C. VARGHESE MARCH 20, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] _Labour Law:_ _Minimum Wages Act, 1939:_ _'Dail)' Farming'-Co-operative Society engaged in purchasing milk from its members and distribution thereof-Employed milk tester for two hours daily on a fixed monthly payment-Employee claiming minimum wages under the Act-Held, activities of Society do not constitute 'dairy farming'Employment in question does not attract provisions of the Act._ c D· Appellant-Co-operative Society was engaged in purchasing milk from its members and its distribution. Respondent no. 1 was engaged as milk tester for two hours from 6.30 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. all days, on a consolidated monthly payment ofRs.350/-. Respondent no. J filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner claiming minimum wages. The application was E allowed. The appellant approached the High Court and the single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Minimum Wages Act was applicable to the 'dairy farming' and was not applicable to the employment in question. However, the Division Bench, in appeal, allowed the claim of respondent no. l, and, therefore, the Society filed the appeal. F On the question: Whether the appellant-Society was engaged in 'dairy farming': Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The mere activity of buying milk by the appellant-Society from G its members and distributing it, will not constitute 'dairy farming' when there is no rearing of milch cows and no agriculture or farming activity is carried on by the Society. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have held that the appellant-society, which merely collects milk from its members and H 241 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 242 [2007) 4 S.C.R. A distributes the same, is not engaged in any employment scheduled under the Minimum Wages Act. !Para 91 (243-E-GI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1497 of 2007. B From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2006 of the High Court of Kerala at Emakulam in W.A. No. 1578 of2004. T.L.V. Iyer, Subramonium Prasad and Karun Mehta for the Appellant. Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillai and G. Ramakrishna Prasad for the Respondent. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. D 3. Heard Mr.T.L.V.lyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dt.24.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1578 of 2004. E 5. The only question arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant-society is engaged in 'dairy farming'. 6. The appellant is a co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and engaged in the collection of milk from its members and distribution thereof. The respondent herein is a milk user in F the appellant-society whose work, according to the appellant, is mainly between 6.30 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. on all days. As per the settlement arrived at before the District Labour Officer Kasergod on September 20, 1990, the respondent was being paid a consolidated pay of Rs.350/- per month from April l, 1990. The Assistant Labour Officer, Kasergod also informed the appellant on 25.03.1998 G that the milk producing in co-operative Societies had not been included under the Minimum Wages Act by any Notification and that there was no orders fixing minimum wages for employees of such society. 7. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner claiming payment of minimum wages under the _-Y_ H .+ ~ SECRETARY, PADIPPU K.S. SANGAM LRD. _v._ C. VARGHESE [LAKSl-IMANAN, J] 243 Minimum Wages Act for the period 01.01.1993 to 31.12.1994 as ifthe said Act A was applicable to co-operative Societies engaged in mere purchase of milk from members and distribution thereof. The application was allowed despite appellant's contest. The appellant challenged the decision before the High Court in writ proceedings contending that the employment in the Society was not a scheduled employment under the Act and, therefore, the second B respondent was not competent to pass such an order for payment of minimum wages under the Act. 8. The learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court accepted the contention and after a detailed reasoning held that the Act was not applicable to the employment in question which applied, inter alia, only to 'dairy farming'. c This judgment has, however, been reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court with a view that even distribution of milk by a Society like the appellant will attract the provisions of the Act. _-r_ _)__ "'f· 9. We have heard extensive arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-workman. D In our view, the impact of the order passed by the Division Bench on the appellant is very serious. Admittedly, the first respondent was employed only as a milk tester. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-society is engaged in purchasing milk from its members and distributing it. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-society does not own cattle milch and they buy E milk for the purpose of production of milk and 'dairy farming'. The contention of Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent, is that the sale of milk does form part of the process of the production of milk which constitute 'dairy farming'. We are unable to countenance the said submission because it is only a part of the process of distribution of milk. In our view, the mere activity of buying milk from its members and distributing it will not F constitute 'dairy farming' when there is no rearing of milch cows and no agriculture or farming activity is carried on by the Society. The High Court, in our opinion, ought to. have held that the appellant-society which merely collects milk from its members and distributes is not engaged in any employment scheduled under the Act. This apart, the respondent's claim that it falls within the purview of 'dairy fanning' in Schedule II cannot also be accepted and we G are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court. We are, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and allow the appeal filed by the appellant-society. H 244 (2007) 4 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A I 0. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent was paid some salary including minimum wages. We make it clear that the amount which has already been paid shall not be recovered from the respondent. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. 11. No costs. B RP. Appeal allowed.