[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerala State Beverages (M&M) ... vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 10 December, 2025
W.A.No.1736 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:94042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 1736 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.41328
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPORATION LTD
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN
- 695033
BY ADV SRI.NAVEEN.T
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
KANNUR, (THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
1948) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670001
2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, 1STCIRCLE,
KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670001
3 SMT. MALLIKA K.
SAJESH BHAVAN HOUSE, KAMMARAN PARAMBU (CHALA), P.O.
KADACHIRA, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670621
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2025,
THE COURT ON 10.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1736 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:94042
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1736 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.41328/2024, challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2025,
dismissing the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking the
following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P4 and
P5 and quashing the same.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order declaring that the petitioner Corporation is
not liable to pay any amount as arrears of minimum wages as
directed in Ext.P4 order.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order declaring that the petitioner Corporation is
not liable to pay any amount as compensation as directed in
Ext.P4 order.
iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order directing the 1st respondent to stop all
further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5."
: 3 :-
2025:KER:94042
3. The appellant is a company fully owned and controlled by
the Government of Kerala. The appellant runs 278 FL-1 Outlets in
State of Kerala. While so, the 2 nd respondent preferred a complaint
under Section29(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act' for short) claiming that minimum wages for the
period from November 2014 to April 2015 was not paid to the third
respondent, who was an employee of the shop and that she is
entitled for an amount of Rs.20,880/- as arrears of minimum wages.
As per the claim petition, the Corporation, being an establishment
scheduled under the Act, is governed by the provisions of the Act
and, since the third respondent has worked for more than 4 hours in
a day during the said period, she is entitled for the minimum wages.
The afore complaint was filed on the basis of Annexure A1
inspection report of the 2nd respondent.
4. On receipt of notice, the appellant filed a written statement
contending that cleaning staffs were engaged by the appellant as
per Ext.P3 order only for one hour a day and that minimum wages,
were paid to them as per Exts.P1 and P2.
5. The first respondent, after considering the materials on
record, issued Ext.P4 order dated 18.06.2024 holding that the
appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,640/- as arrears of
: 4 :-
2025:KER:94042
minimum wages for the period from November 2014 to April 2015
and also a sum of Rs.5,160/- as compensation to the third
respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P5 show
cause notice directing the appellant to remit the amount within
seven days. It is in such circumstances, the appellant filed this writ
petition seeking the afore reliefs.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on
record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.
7. Heard Adv.Naveen T, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Adv.Thulasi K.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the
party respondent and Adv.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the State.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.P4
order has been passed by the first respondent without any
materials. He submitted that the complainant has not adduced any
evidence to show that the third respondent has worked for the
duration as claimed. He submitted that as per Ext.P3 order
sweepers are and, can be engaged by the appellant Corporation
only for one hour a day and that the minimum wages, as specified
in Exts.P1 and P2 have already been paid to the third respondent for
this period.
: 5 :-
2025:KER:94042
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondent
submitted that Ext.P4 decision has been rendered by the first
respondent on the basis of the materials available before him. She
argued that the complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent on the
basis of Annexure A1 inspection report filed by him and it would
clearly show that the appellant has not even registered the
establishment as required by law. She submitted that the
statements of the employees, who were working there at the
relevant time was recorded by the 2 nd respondent and it would show
that the appellant has engaged the 3 rd respondent to work for long
hours, without paying the minimum wages. She further contended
that Ext.P3 has not yet been implemented by the appellant
Corporation and it has not produced any material to substantiate its
contention that the 3rd respondent was engaged only for one hour
daily. She submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly found
that the disputed questions of fact cannot be examined by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and
the materials on record, we are of the view that there is no merit in
the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is
to be taken note that the appellant is not disputing the fact that the
: 6 :-
2025:KER:94042
third respondent was engaged by it in a FL-1 shop. It is also not in
dispute that the 2nd respondent has conducted an inspection in the
shop, wherein the third respondent was working, and has filed
Annexure A1 report. Annexure A1 report would show that at the
time of inspection, the appellant has not even registered the
establishment as required by law and that minimum wages are not
being paid to casual employees. Even though the appellant has
contended that as per Ext.P3, sweepers have been engaged by it
only for an hour daily, no materials have been produced to
substantiate the same. It is further pertinent to note that the
appellant was not even able to produce the vouchers evidencing
payments to such employees, or their appointment orders or the
muster rolls or wage registers. It can be thus be seen that the
appellant has failed to substantiate any of the contentions raised in
the writ petition. That apart, as rightly found by the learned Single
Judge, the question whether the third respondent had worked only
for one hour or for a longer duration, is a disputed question of fact,
which cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In such circumstance, we do not find any
reason to take a different conclusion than as reached by the learned
Single Judge.
: 7 :-
2025:KER:94042
Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
