Kerala High Court
Abdul Khader.E.M vs The Employees Compensation ... on 4 August, 2025
WA NO. 1449 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:57451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1449 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2024 IN WP(C) NO.859 OF 2014
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ABDUL KHADER.E.M
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, AL-IQBAL HOSPITAL
(NOW CLOSED) CHENTRAPPINNI,
RESIDING AT EDAVAZHIPURATH, CHEMAKKALA P.O.,
CHENTRAPPINNI, PIN: 680 687.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.K.A.HAZAN
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
SHRI.MANOJKUMAR G.
SHRI.ASHOK MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER,
THRISSUR AND THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT
OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680684
WA NO. 1449 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:57451
3 THE TAHSILDAR
KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680684
4 THE THRISSUR DISTRICT PRIVATE HOSPITAL AND GENERAL
WORKERS UNION, MANNADIAR LANE, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOPHY TILAKAN,
PIN - 680001
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 04.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1449 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:57451
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard Adv.Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, Adv.Sri.K.P Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3 and Adv.Sri.V.M KrishnaKumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 50 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, C.M Appln. No. 2 of 2025 to condone the delay is allowed.
3. The present writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 20.6.2024 in W.P(C) No. 859 of 2014 wherein the appellant-petitioner had challenged the action of the 2nd respondent - the Assistant labour officer under the Minimum Wages Act for determining the wages of 87 employees for the period September 2005 to February 2006. The aforementioned application was filed by the 2nd respondent in 2008, Ext.P5. In those proceedings, the appellant-petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. The recovery proceedings, Ext.P11, was initiated in the year 2013 and the appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 6.11.2012 which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.4.2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the Labour Officer has determined the compensation in terms of money to the tune of Rs.10,08,840/-. WA NO. 1449 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:57451
4. It is contended that the order of the labour court and as well as the Single Bench did not notice the fact that Rule 33(4) of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1958) does not envisage any limitation for moving an application. In other words, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not excluded by Section 29 of the said Act. All these factors if had been looked into, no harm and prejudice would have been caused to the other side by giving a chance to the appellant-petitioner to lead evidence.
5. In an identical issue considered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.460 of 2025, the Court had passed the following order:
"Sri.P.Ramakrishnan submitted that the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 33 of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules do not oust the non-applicability of provisions of Limitation Act even if the application for setting aside the ex parte was not filed within one(1) month. There is no bar for seeking recalling of the order along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Already a sum of Rs.5 lakhs out of Rs.10,08,840/- (Rupees ten lakhs eight thousand eight hundred forty only) has been deposited. We are of the view that though the appellant-petitioner have been not diligent in moving an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 28.01.2008, but in the interest of justice, the appellant should have been given a chance to contest the averment of non-deposit of minimum wages of eighty seven(87) workmen for the period September, 2005 to WA NO. 1449 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:57451 February, 2006. Issue notice before admission.
Sri.T.K.Vipindas, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Coercive measures against the appellants are ordered to be stayed till the next date of hearing. Interim order is subject to the quantification of the cost which this Court will determine on the next date of hearing."
6. Considering the predicament and the fact that the Rule 33(4) of the Rules, 1958 which is extracted herein, below does not envisage any bar in moving the application. Obviously, the applicability of Section 5 cannot be ruled out, the courts below ought to have considered this aspect either by framing the issue or giving a chance to lead evidence to show whether the delay was either intentional or bonafide.
"33(4) An order passed under Sub-rule (2) or Sub-rule(3) may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown by the defaulting party within one month of the date of the said order, and the application shall then be reheard after service of notice on the opposite party on the date fixed for rehearing in the manner specified in Sub-rule (I)."
7. Be that as it may, since the matter has already reached in an intra court appeal, we do not deem it appropriate to traverse on such issue and deem it appropriate to set aside the ex parte proceedings against the appellant. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application of the workmen by WA NO. 1449 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:57451 giving chance to the appellant-petitioner to file reply and lead evidence by giving three-three (3-3) effective opportunities in a span of 1-1 month each and decide the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and pass a speaking order. An identical issue raised in W.A. No. 460 of 2025, the coordinate bench has disposed of the writ appeal with a similar direction herein above, in respect of the same appellant against different set of employees.
The writ appeal is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE NJ WA NO. 1449 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:57451 APPENDIX OF WA 1449/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS English translation TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-4(A) of Exhibit P-4(a) English translation TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-7 IN WP of Exhibit P-7 (C) 859 OF 2014.
English translation TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-11 IN of Exhibit P-11 WP (C) 859 OF 2014.
Legible copy of TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT R-4(A) Exhibit R-4(a) Legible copy of TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT R-4(B) Exhibit R-4(b)