Prakasan vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 7737 Ker

Kerala High Court

Prakasan vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 8 April, 2025

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

                                                               2025:KER:31096



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

          TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                            WP(C) NO. 14667 OF 2025


PETITIONER:

              PRAKASAN
              AGED 42 YEARS
              S/O.CHATHU, RESIDING AT, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, VIYYUR AMSOM,
              KODAKKATTU MURI DESOM, MUCHUKUNNU P.O, KOYILANDY TALUK,
              KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 307.

              BY ADVS.
                    M.PROMODH KUMAR
                    MAYA CHANDRAN
                    AKSHAYA C.

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
              KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CIVIL
              STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 020.

     2        ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
              OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, KOYILANDY TALUK,
              KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 305.

     3        DEPUTY TAHASILDAR
              KOYILANDY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 673 305.

     4        VILLAGE OFFICER
              VIYYUR VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, VIYYUR, KOYILANDY TALUK,
              KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673 307.

              BY ADV. MABLE C. KURIEN, SENIOR GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.14667 OF 2025      : 2 :

                                                2025:KER:31096




                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner was the proprietor of 'Mavis Avil Mill'

which is engaged in the manufacture of 'rice flakes'. The

2nd respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer, who is the

inspector appointed under Section 19 of the Minimum

Wages Act, 1948 (for short, 'the MW Act') filed an

application under Section 20 (2) of the MW Act before

the 1st respondent, the Authority appointed under Section

20(1), alleging non payment of minimum wages to his 19

workers for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018.

Though notice was issued to the petitioner, he did not

enter appearance and he was set ex-parte. The 1st

respondent passed Ext. P1 order directing the petitioner

to pay an amount of Rs.2,82,927/- towards the difference

2025:KER:31096

in the payment of wages and compensation to the

workers within 30 days.

2. The 2nd respondent had also initiated

proceedings under Section 20(2) of the MW Act, alleging

deficit payment of Rs. 10,18,554/- by the petitioner to

his workers for the period from August 2020 to January

2021 than that is payable under the MW Act and as

compensation. The petitioner though received summons,

did not appear. The petitioner was set ex-parte and

Ext.P2 order was passed by the 1st respondent directing

the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,69,482/-

towards the difference in the minimum wages and

compensation.

3. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 application to set aside

Ext.P2 ex-parte order along with Ext.P4 application for

2025:KER:31096

condonation of delay. The 1st respondent, vide Ext.P5,

rejected Ext.P3 on the ground that the petitioner had not

filed the application within 30 days of the passing of the

order, as required under Rule 33(4) of the Kerala

Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Kerala MW

Rules'). In the meantime, recovery proceedings were also

initiated against the petitioner under the Kerala Revenue

Recovery Act, 1968. Exts.P8 and P9 are the recovery

notices.

4. According to the petitioner, the establishment

was closed in February 2021, and he went abroad in

search of employment. The notices under the MW Act

were issued while he was abroad, and he was therefore

unable to contest the proceedings. It is contended that

Rule 33(4) of the Kerala MW Rules does not exclude the

2025:KER:31096

operation of the Limitation Act, and hence the 1 st

respondent ought to have considered Ext.P4, the

application for condonation of delay. It is further

contended that neither the Minimum Wages Act nor the

Rules framed thereunder expressly exclude the

applicability of the Limitation Act, and hence, Section 5

of the Limitation Act is applicable.

5. The provisions of Section 20(3)(i) & (ii) of the

Minimum Wages Act read as under:-

"20(3). When any application under sub- section (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under

2025:KER:31096

this Act, direct-

(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the employee of the amount by which the minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of such excess;

(ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to the employee, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees, and the Authority may direct payment of such compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal of the application."

Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act provides that

when an application under sub-section (2) is entertained,

2025:KER:31096

and before issuing any direction under clauses (i) and (ii)

of sub-section (3), the Authority shall hear the applicant

and the employer or afford them an opportunity of being

heard. In the present case, the petitioner was served

with notice by the 1st respondent.

6. Chapter V of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules

deals with claims under the Minimum Wages Act, and

Rule 33 of the said Rules reads as follows:

"Rule 33. Appearance of parties.

(1) If an application under sub-section (2) of Section 20 or Section 21 is entertained, the Authority shall serve upon the employer by registered post a notice in Form X to appear before him on a specified date with all relevant documents and witnesses, if any, and shall inform the applicant of the date so specified.

2025:KER:31096

(2) If the employer or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may hear and determine the application ex pate.

(3) If the applicant or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may dismiss the application.

(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 (1)."

Rule 33(1) provides that if an application under Section

20(2) or Section 21 is entertained, the Authority shall

serve upon the employer, by registered post, a notice in

the prescribed form requiring him to appear before the

2025:KER:31096

Authority on a specified date with all relevant documents

and witnesses, if any, and shall also inform the applicant

of the date so specified. Rule 33(2) provides that, if the

employer or his representative fails to appear on the

specified date, the Authority may hear and determine the

application ex-parte. The petitioner has no case that the

1st respondent did not issue any notice on the application

under Section 20(2) of the MW Act. When notice was

issued and duly served on the employer, and the

employer fails to appear, the only option before the

Authority is to hear and determine the application ex-

parte. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he

was not given an opportunity to contest the matter on

merits.

7. Rule 33(4) of the Kerala MW Rules provides that

2025:KER:31096

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 (1). In

Ext.P5, the 1st respondent observed that the Kerala

Minimum Wages Rules do not empower the Authority to

condone the delay in filing Ext.P3, as it was submitted

beyond 30 days from the date of the ex-parte order. Rule

33(4) of the Kerala MW Rules permits the Authority

under the MW Act to set aside an ex-parte order passed

under sub-rule (2) on sufficient cause being shown by the

defaulting party within one month of the date of the said

order. The period up to which the Authority can accept

2025:KER:31096

an application for setting aside the ex-parte order is

statutorily fixed. Beyond the said period, the Authority

has no power to set aside an ex-parte order passed under

Rule 33(2), even on sufficient cause being shown by the

defaulting party. If the delay is statutorily not

condonable, it cannot be condoned extending the

provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further,

no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner to

have the ex-parte order set aside.

I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts.P1,

P2 and P5 orders or Exts.P8 and P9 notices. Accordingly,

the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ

2025:KER:31096

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14667/2025

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MCP NO. 25/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-01-2022.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MCP NO. 82/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30-09-2022.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25-06-2023.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY OF 221 DAYS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25-06-2023.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 82/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-07-2023.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER MCP 82/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31-07- 2023.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-08-2023.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES IN FORM 10 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24-05-2024.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES IN FORM 10 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05-07-2024.

EXHIBIT P10 THE PAYMENT DETAILS OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES FOR THE PETITIONERS MILL ISSUED BY KSEB DATED 20-03- 2025.