Kerala High Court
Sujatha Devi A vs The Assistant Labour Officer on 4 April, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA,
1946
OP(LC) NO. 3837 OF 2012
PETITIONER/S:
SUJATHA DEVI A.
AGED 46 YEARS
EMPLOYER, HOTAL PADIPURAYIL, PARAVOOR P.O.,
PARAVOOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SMT.S.SIKKY
RESPONDENT/S:
THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
PARAVOOR P.O., PARAVOOR- 691501.
THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(LC) No.3837/2012
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging
Ext.P1 order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Kollam under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act,
1948 (for short 'the Act') directing her to pay an amount
of Rs.1,58,958/- being the arrears of minimum wages
for the period from 1.5.2009 to 30.10.2009 together with
compensation in respect of 7 employees stated to be
employed by her during the aforesaid period. The
petitioner states that the persons referred to in Ext.P1
order were employed by the petitioner on temporary
basis on their availability and that they were not
permanent employees attached to her establishment and
are not entitled for minimum wages under the Act. It is
further contended that she was not given an opportunity
to adduce evidence before passing Ext.P1 order. It is
also contended that the respondent, the Assistant Labour
Officer, the Inspector appointed under section 19(2) of
the Act had personal grudge towards her and only to
wreak vengeance, the impugned proceedings have been
initiated. The petitioner prays to quash Ext. P1.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
3.The Minimum Wages proceedings were initiated by
the respondent Inspector stating that the petitioner paid
less than the minimum rate of wages for the period
from 1.5.2009 to 30.10.2009 to the 7 employees
employed in her hotel, which is an establishment under
the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act,
1960 and to which the provisions of the Minimum Wages
Act applies. Ext. P1 order states that, though the
petitioner was directed to produce the muster roll and
register of wages, no records were produced.
Accordingly, Ext.A2 show cause notice dated 28.02.2009
was issued to her. However, she did not respond. Ext.A3
is the claim notice issued to her, evidenced by Ext.A4
acknowledgment card. However, she did not enter
appearance to defend the claim.
4. After preferring the application under Section 20
(2) of the Act before the Authority under the Minimum
Wages Act, though summons was issued by registered
post and the petitioner received the summons on
15.5.2010, she did not appear and the Authority declared
her ex parte on 14.10.2010. Ext. P1 order of the
Authority is dated 27.2.2012. The petitioner did not file
any application to set aside the ex parte order during
this period. The entire proceedings shows that the
petitioner was not diligent and vigilant to defend the
claim petition. The allegation that the Assistant Labour
Officer initiated the proceedings due to grudge against
her is not substantiated by any proof.
5. The Minimum Wages Act is a welfare legislation.
The object of the Act is to fix the minimum rate of wages
for various types of employment mentioned in Part I and
Part II of the Schedule to the Act. Section 20 of the Act
deals with adjudication of claims. The claim has been
preferred under Section 20 (2) by the respondent
Inspector. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to
defend the claim before the Authority. Having not utilised
such opportunity, she cannot approach this Court alleging
that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend
the claim. I do not find merit in the contention raised by
the petitioner in the Original Petition. Accordingly, the
Original Petition is dismissed.
This Court passed an order on 11.3.2013 extending
the interim order of stay of Ext.P1 granted on
16.04.2012 on condition that the petitioner deposits a
sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the amounts due under
Ext.P1 order within a period of one month. The petitioner
states that she has complied with the said order. The
arrears of minimum wages pertains to the period 2009.
The original petition is pending before this Court from
2012. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount
along with interest at the rate of 9% within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, failing which the amount shall be recovered as
per the provisions of the Act.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
al/-.04.04.2024.
