[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing ... vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 10 December, 2025
W.A.No.1755 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:94053
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. 1755 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.38510 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING &
MARKETING)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, 1ST CIRCLE,
KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001
3 ADDL.R3. SAJESH K.,
SAJEESH BHAVAN, KAMMARAN PARAMBA, ADOOR, KADACHIRA
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670321 (ADDL.R3
IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DAED 29-01-2025 IN IA 1/24 IN
WPC 38510/2024), PIN - 670621
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
W.A.No.1755 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:94053
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
ADV.K.P.HARISH (SR.GP)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2025, THE COURT ON 10.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1755 of 2025
: 3 :-
2025:KER:94053
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1755 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the __ day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.38510/2024 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."
: 4 :-
2025:KER:94053
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 2nd respondent preferred a complaint
under Section 29(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (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 he 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, he 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 as per Ext.P3 order
only for one hour daily 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 18.6.2024 holding that the
appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,640/- as arrears of
minimum wages for the period from November 2014 to April 2015
: 5 :-
2025:KER:94053
and also a sum of Rs.5160/- as compensation to the 3 rd 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.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondent
submitted that Ext.P4 decision has been rendered by the first
: 6 :-
2025:KER:94053
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 was not even maintaining wage
register, service records, job register, etc., as stipulated by the
statute. 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 3 rd 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
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 was not even maintaining wage
register, job registers, service records, etc., as required by law and
: 7 :-
2025:KER:94053
that the establishment was not registered. 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 also pertinent to note that
the appellant was not even able to produce the appointment order,
and vouchers evidencing payments to the 3rd respondent even at
least for the period prior to the inspection. In short, the appellant
has totally failed to substantiate any of the contentions raised by it
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.
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
