Karnataka High Court
The Senior Assistant Director vs Smt Krishnamma on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
WP No. 10576 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.10576 OF 2012 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
JYOTHINAGARA POST,
CHIKMAGALUR - 577102
R. SADANANDA,
AGED 52 YEARS. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. KRISHNAMMA
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M W/O. DHARMEGOWDA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
COURT OF R/O. NARIGUDDENAHALLI,
KARNATAKA
JYOTHINAGAR POST,
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577102. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH .M FOR SRI K. GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CASE NO.PÀ.ªÀÉÃ.PÁ.24/07 BY
THE MINIMUM WAGES AUTHORITY COURT DATED 14.09.2011,
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -C AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
WP No. 10576 of 2012
ORDER
The petitioner - Horticulture Department is before
this Court assailing the order dated 14.09.2011 in case
No.PÀ.ªÀÉÃ.PÁ.24/2007 passed by the Minimum Wages Court
('the authority' for short) whereby, the petitioner was
directed to pay minimum wages for the period from
01.04.1998 to 14.01.2006, amounting to Rs.84,510.65/-
with ten times penalty.
2. Respondent was appointed as a gardener with
the petitioner's department. Respondent raised an
industrial dispute under I.D.R No.16/2007 before the
Labour Court contending, that respondent has put in
continuous service of more than 240 days and her services
came to be terminated without any notice or paying
compensation. The Labour Court held that the employee
has succeeded in proving that she has worked under the
department for 240 days in the calendar years from 1998
to 2006 and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
3. Writ petition was preferred by the employee in
W.P.No.8144/2009 before this Court. This Court modified
the order of the Labour Court and awarded Rs.50,000/- as
compensation.
4. Another writ petition was preferred by the
petitioner in W.P. No.24419/2009, questioning the award
in IDR No.16/2007 and the order in W.P.No.8144/2009.
This Court, by its order dated 29.01.2010, rejected the
petition, however, since it was an ex-parte order, liberty
was accorded to the petitioner to file a review petition.
Review petition also came to be dismissed, having not
made any grounds for review.
5. This being the state of affairs, the employee
filed claim petition under Section 20(2) of the Minimum
Wages Act before the Authority, contending that she is
entitled for minimum wages for the period from
01.04.1998 to 14.01.2006 amounting to Rs.84,510.65/-
with ten times penalty.
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
6. Management entered appearance and filed
statement of objections refuting the contentions of the
employee, the authority noting that the management has
not produced NMR Register for September-October, 1989,
an adverse inference to be drawn against the management
and directed to pay Rs.84,510/- towards penalty and
Rs.84,510.65/- towards the difference of the minimum
wages and total amount of Rs.1,69,021/- to the
respondent-employee. Aggrieved by which, the
management is before this Court.
7. Heard Sri Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Mahesh M., learned counsel for Sri
K. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the application under the provisions of the
Minimum Wages Act was filed with a delay of nine years
and the Court ought not to have entertained the claim
petition filed by the workman with an inordinate delay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
claim petition filed by the workman ought to have been
dismissed as barred by limitation.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would justify the order of the Authority and would contend
that the workman has succeeded in proving that she has
worked under the management for 240 days from 1989 to
2006 and the same has been concluded in the writ petition
filed by the workman, which has attained finality. Learned
counsel would contend that the order passed by the
Authority does not warrant any interference in the hands
of this Court.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the only point that arises for consideration is :
"Whether the order passed by the Authority
warrants interference in the facts and
circumstances of this case?"
11. This Court has carefully considered the rival
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
12. The facts as stated supra are not in dispute that
the employee has been held to have worked for the period
of 240 days from 1989 till 2006. Under the provisions of
the Minimum Wages Act, the workman having proved that
she was working under Scheduled employment, the
department ought not to have refused to pay the
minimum wages as per her entitlement. However, the
workman has approached the authority after the long
lapse of time i.e., an inordinate delay of nine years, the
approach by the employee after inordinate delay and the
authority condoning the delay and imposing penalty on the
Department is not justified and contrary to Section 20 (2)
of the Minimum Wages Act, which provides that an
application shall be presented within six months from the
date on which the minimum wages or other amounts
become payable, it also provides that after the period of
six months, the applicant has to satisfy the authority that
he had sufficient cause for not making the application
within such period. The authority has failed to consider
that an inordinate delay of nine years would be condoned
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
just merely of asking it. The authority ought to have taken
into account the inordinate delay in filing the application
and the petitioner-department should not have been
directed to pay the penalty on the amount to which the
employee would not be entitled for an inordinate delay of
nine years. The direction by the authority to pay penalty
at ten times, this Court is of the considered view that the
same is not justified.
13. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
The Management of Davangere Cotton Mills Vs. C.R.
Krishna and Another1 has held that ordering of penalty
of even two times is not justified when the claimant filed
claim petition with an inordinate delay. The inordinate
delay of ten years by the applicant in preferring the claim
petition, the applicant is not entitled for any amount under
the head penalty and the same warrants interference by
this Court.
ILR 2007 KAR 4702
NC: 2024:KHC:1483
14. In the said circumstances, the point framed for
consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part.
ii. Impugned order at Annexure-C dated 14.09.2011 is
hereby modified directing the petitioner to pay a sum
of Rs.84,510.65/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of this writ petition,
payable to the respondent within four weeks from
the date of release of this order.
iii. The order directing the penalty is set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MR/MBM
