Kerala High Court

Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd vs P.Ajith Kumar on 27 June, 2025

W.P.(C).No.14137 of 2022     1



                                                2025:KER:47111

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

    FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947

                      WP(C) NO. 14137 OF 2022

PETITIONER:

           CENTAUR PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD.,
           CENTAUR HOUSE, NEAR GRAND HYATT HOTEL, VAKOLA,
           SANTACRUZ (EAST0, MUMBAI-400055, REPRESENTED BY
           ITS GENERAL MANAGER (HRD)


           BY ADVS.
           SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
           SMT.A.SALINI LAL


RESPONDENTS:

     1     P.AJITH KUMAR,S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, DEVITHEERTHAM,
           ERAKKOTTIRI ROAD, MEETNA, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM,
           PALAKKAD -679103

     2     CLAIM AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
           (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER), THOZHIL BHAVAN,
           CIVIL STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001


           BY ADVS.
           SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
           SRI.P.S.GIREESH
           SHRI.RAYMOND GEORGE DIAS
           SHRI.ARJUN R NAIK


OTHER PRESENT:

           GP- NIMA JACOB
      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.14137 of 2022          1



                                                            2025:KER:47111


                                                               "CR"

                      VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
                    --------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.14137 of 2022
              --------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025

                                  JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging

Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent, the authority

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the

Act,1948').

2. The brief facts necessary for the

disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The

petitioner is a company engaged in the business of

manufacturing, marketing and distribution of

pharmaceuticals. The 1st respondent was working as

a Medical and Sales Representative in the

petitioner Company, who was terminated from

service. The 1st respondent filed Ext.P2 claim

petition seeking to release an amount of

Rs.3,58,982/-, which is the minimum wages due to

him as per the provisions of the Act, 1948.

2025:KER:47111

Petitioner would contend that even on a perusal of

Ext.P2 claim petition, it could be seen that the 1 st

respondent has not specifically claimed or pleaded

the period as well as the rates in which he is

entitled to get the minimum wages. Ext.P4 counter

statement has been filed by the petitioner wherein

the question of limitation has been specifically

raised and contended that the claim petition is

hopelessly barred by limitation and the question of

maintainability needs to be heard as a preliminary

issue. Though the 1st respondent was dismissed from

service during 2015, he has filed various

complaints before various authorities during the

said period for which the condonation of delay is

sought for. The case of the petitioner is that

there are no arrears of minimum wages to be paid to

the 1st respondent. Ext.P5 rejoinder was filed by

the 1st respondent. Evidence was adduced, and

Exts.A1 to A8 documents were marked on the side of

the 1st respondent. Though the salary details of the

1st respondent were submitted by the petitioner

2025:KER:47111

Company, the same were not marked since the same

did not contain any seal. The 1st respondent

authority, without appreciating the facts as well

as the law, in a unilateral manner allowed the

claim petition by Ext.P7 order. It is aggrieved by

the same that the present writ petition has been

filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would contend that Ext.P2 petition is barred by

limitation, in as much as Section 20(2) of the Act,

1948 mandates that an application/claim petition is

to be filed within six months from the date on

which minimum wages became payable, though on

sufficient reasons to be shown the delay could be

condoned. But in the present case, no valid reason

has been stated for condonation of delay in filing

Ext.P2 claim petition. It is further contended that

no amount is due to the 1st respondent, and the 2nd

respondent, while issuing Ext.P7 order, has not

considered any of the contentions of the petitioner

in a proper manner and that he has not given any

2025:KER:47111

reason for condoning the delay and allowing the

claim petition. It is also contended that the 1 st

respondent failed to prove his claim by adducing

proper evidence. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has produced a copy of the salary

statement as Ext.P8, which was not accepted by the

authority as the same was not signed and sealed by

a competent person. The learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P9, which is the

application filed by the 1st respondent before the

authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,

contends that the petitioner is taking different

stands regarding the last drawn monthly wages.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been

filed by the 1st respondent, contending that he was

employed as a Medical Sales Representative in the

petitioner company and later he was discharged as

per Ext.R1(a) discharge letter dated 9.9.2015, and

in Ext.R1(a) it is clearly mentioned that the last

month pay is only Rs.6167/- which is much below the

minimum wages fixed by the Government of Kerala.

2025:KER:47111

All throughout his service in the petitioner

Company, he was paid wages much less than what is

fixed by the Government of Kerala for employees

employed in the Sales Promotion of Pharmaceutical

Products Sector, which is a Scheduled employment

under the Act, 1948. Though several demands were

made, the petitioner was not ready to pay the

minimum wages actually due to him. In the said

circumstances, Ext.P2 claim petition was filed

along with Ext.P3 application for condonation of

delay. Petitioner would submit that he was under

constant medical care and attention due to various

diseases contracted by him and was undergoing

treatment as per the advice of the expert doctors

and to prove the illness, has produced Ext.A8

series of medical records which was taken into

consideration by the authority while issuing Ext.P7

order. From 2006 onwards, he was suffering from

diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease and

was under continuous treatment from 2006 onwards.

By 2015, insulin pump therapy was started, and he

2025:KER:47111

required lifelong treatment. It is taking note of

all these that the delay in filing the claim

petition was condoned. Though various contentions

were raised by the petitioner before the

controlling authority, no documents have been

produced to substantiate them. The salary statement

produced by the petitioner was without any seal or

signature, and the authority has correctly rejected

the marking of the same. The petitioner also did

not take any steps to produce sufficient documents

to substantiate their contentions and did not

examine any competent person of the petitioner

organisation. It is further submitted that Ext.P2

claim petition was accompanied by Ext.R1(b) series

of annexures which clearly show the amount due and

claimed by the 1st respondent and the same was

suppressed by the petitioner by producing Ext.P2 as

a document in the writ petition without its

Annexures. On the above-said contention, the 1st

respondent would submit that the claim petition has

been properly considered by the authority and

2025:KER:47111

issued Ext.P7 order and no interference is called

for.

5. I have considered the rival contentions

on both sides.

6. Essentially, two contentions are raised

by the petitioner assailing Ext.P7 order passed by

the authority under the Act, 1948. Let me consider

the first contention raised by the petitioner that

the application has not been filed within time and

no valid reasons have been stated in Ext.P3

petition filed seeking to condone the delay in

filing Ext.P2 claim petition. Section 20 (1) and

(2) of the Act,1948 reads as follows:

"20.Claims.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint [any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as a Labour Commissioner for any region, [or any officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Deputy Labour Commissioner] or any] other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendary Magistrate to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of payment less than the minimum rates of wages [or in respect of the payment of the remuneration for days of rest or for work done or such days under C1.(b) or C1.(c) of

2025:KER:47111

sub-section(1) of Sec.13 or of wages at the overtime rate under Sec.141, to employees employed or paid in that area.] (2) [Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section(1), the employee himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector, or any person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-section(1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-section (3):

Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the minimum wages [or other amount] became payable:

Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

(underline supplied) Going by the 1st proviso to Section 20(2) every

application shall be presented within six months

from the date on which the minimum wages or other

amount became payable, and the second proviso

provides that any application may be admitted after

the said period of six months when the applicant

satisfies the authority that he had sufficient

cause for not making the application within such

period. Ext.P3 is the application seeking to

2025:KER:47111

condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 claim petition.

The 1st respondent submits that he was undergoing

treatment, and it is only due to the serious health

condition that he could not raise a claim within

time. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that sufficient medical records were

produced before the authority to substantiate his

contentions in Ext.P3 petition to condone the

delay, and the medical records produced before the

authority were marked as Annexure-A8. The case

records before the authority were called for by

this Court and examined, and the same would reveal

that Ext.P8 series of medical records was produced

by the petitioner to prove his contention that the

delay occurred only because of the serious health

condition of the 1st respondent. The authority, only

after going through the records produced as

Annexure-A8, entered a finding to the effect that

there is sufficient reason to condone the delay in

filing Ext.P2 petition.

7. The petitioner would contend that the

2025:KER:47111

Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India

(1990) 4 SCC 594, considering a case under the Army

Act 1950 held that the authority exercising quasi-

judicial function must record reasons for its

decision and the reasons should be clear and

explicit though may not be elaborate and in the

present case no valid reasons have been stated to

condone the delay. But a perusal of Ext.P7 order

would reveal that valid and cogent reasons have

been given by the authority to come to the

conclusion in Ext.P7 and therefore the decision

cited supra will not be applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. In Chacha Nehru

Vidyapith, Ranchi v. Authority under Minimum Wages

Act, 1948 cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Ranchi, and others (2001 (1) LLN 1193) the High

Court of Jharkhand was considering a challenge

against the order of the Assistant Labour

Commissioner in condoning the delay in raising a

claim petition and the Court held in paragraphs 6

and 6A reads as follows:

2025:KER:47111

"6.From perusal of the original order, dated 30 January 1996, passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, it appears that the authority before condoning the delay recorded its satisfaction that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing application within time. The appellate authority also considered the question and came to a finding that the satisfaction recorded by original authority and condoning the delay needs no interference.

6A. It is true that generally Court should not come in aid of a party where there has been unwarrantable delay in seeking statutory remedy and the remedy must be sought with reasonable promptitute having regard to circumstances. But at the same time the plea of limitation is one which the Court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority or any institution, in all morality and justice take up such plea to defeat just claim of a citizen. It is always permissible to adopt a beneficial construction of a rule of limitation, particularly in giving the relief under a beneficial legislation. This Court therefore, in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot probe into the question as to whether there existed sufficient cause which give jurisdiction to the authority to condone the delay. This question is answered against the petitioner."

(underline supplied) The Apex Court in Sarpanch, Lonand Gramapanchayat

v. Ramgiri Gosavi and Another 1968 KHC 413 was

considering the power of discretion of Authority in

condoning the delay as provided under the 2nd

proviso to Section 20(2) and held that words

2025:KER:47111

"sufficient cause" should receive a liberal

construction so as to advance substantial justice

when no negligence nor inaction nor want of

bonafides is imputable to the applicant and the

High Court shall refuse to interfere unless there

is grave miscarriage of justice. Paragraphs 3 and

4 of the said judgment reads as follows:

"3. The authority has a discretion to condone the delay in presenting the application provided sufficient cause for the entire delay is shown to its satisfaction. This discretion like other judicial discretion must be exercised with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense, and sound judgment. The discretion is to know through law what is just, see Keighley's case,(1609) 10 Co.Rep 139 a: 77ER 1136.

4. The wording of the second proviso is similar to the provisions of S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In Krishna v. Chathappan, (13) ILR 1890 Mad. 269 the Madras High Court indicated in the following passage how the discretion under S.5 should be exercised:

We think that S.5 gives the Courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood: the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bana fides is imputable to the appellants.

This decision received the approval of this Court in

2025:KER:47111

Dinabandhu Sahu v.Jadumoni Mangaraj, 1955(1)SCR 140 at p.146:(AIR 1954 SC 411 at p.414) and Ramlal Motilal v.Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962(2) SCR 762 at p.767:(AIR 1962 SC 361 at p. 363). The words "sufficient cause" in the second proviso to S.20(2) should receive similar liberal construction."

(underline supplied)

8. Admittedly, sufficient reason has been

given in Ext.P3 in support of the contention that

it is only due to his serious health issues that

the 1st respondent could not file the claim petition

within time. The 1st respondent has also produced a

series of medical records as Annexure-A8, and while

condoning the delay as per Ext.P7 order, the

authority has taken into consideration Ext.A8

series of medical records which revealed the

serious health condition of the petitioner and

therefore condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 claim

petition. In a claim made under a beneficial

legislation as held by the decision cited supra,

the word "sufficient cause" should receive a

liberal construction so as to advance substantial

justice. In view of the above facts and

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

2025:KER:47111

authority has properly applied its mind after

considering the documents submitted in support of

the petition to condone the delay and the same was

condoned for valid reasons. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioner that the authority did

not consider the contentions properly before

condoning the delay is only to be rejected.

9. Further contention raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is regarding the claim

raised in Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that though an amount of

Rs.3,58,982/- is claimed in Ext.P2 claim petition

the 1st respondent has not specifically claimed or

pleaded the period as well as the rate at which he

is entitled to get the minimum wages and that only

a casual statement is made in the claim petition

that he is entitled for the amount claimed. Learned

counsel appearing for the respondent would submit

that along with Ext.P2 claim petition Ext.R1(b)

series of annexures were attached, which are

mandatorily required to be attached along with the

2025:KER:47111

claim petition. I have verified the records of the

authority, which revealed that along with Ext.P2

claim petition Ext.R1(b) statements were also seen

attached. Petitioner has not produced the copies of

the said annexures along with Ext.P2 and is raising

a contention that the details of the amount claimed

have not been enumerated by the 1st respondent in

the claim petition. First of all filing of the writ

petition without a complete set of Ext.P2 claim

petition and raising a ground that no details have

been given by the 1st respondent in support of his

claim cannot be lightly looked into by this Court

and is of the opinion that the petitioner by

suppressing material facts before this Court is

raising untenable contentions in the writ petition.

Further, a perusal of Ext.P2 claim petition and

Ext.R1(a) attached to the same would clearly reveal

that the petitioner has raised his claim with all

supporting documents. It is also to be noted that

as per the Minimum Wages Notification issued by the

Government of Kerala as per GO (MS) 703/2009/LBR

2025:KER:47111

dated 27.05.2009 basic wage to be paid for category

of employees under "Sale promotion" is fixed as

Rs.7100-150-7850/-. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would

reveal that these details furnished by the

petitioner have been duly considered by the

authority. Though the petitioner contends that

Ext.P8 monthly salary statement was produced before

the authority to show the details of the wages paid

to the 1st respondent, the same was not accepted.

Valid reason has been given by the authority for

not accepting the said document, as the said

document produced did not bear any company seal or

signature, and no person was examined to prove the

authenticity of the document. I am of the view that

the authority has rightly rejected the document

produced by the petitioner, which did not contain

the seal of the company or signature of the

authorized person and did not examine any person to

prove the authenticity of the statement. Further

Ext.P8 salary statement produced by the petitioner

cannot be accepted also for the reason that the

2025:KER:47111

same is not a document regarding payment of wages

to the employees to be maintained as per the

provisions of the Act, 1948 and the Rules

thereunder. Section 18(1) of the Act, 1948 deals

with maintenance of registers and records which

mandates that every employer shall maintain such

registers and records giving such particulars of

employees employed by him, the work performed by

them, the wages paid to them, the receipts given by

them and such other particulars and in such form as

may be prescribed. Further Rule 29(1) of the Kerala

Minimum Wages Rules, 1958, mandates that a register

of wages in Form XI shall be maintained by every

employer and kept at the workspot. A perusal of

Form XI appended to the Rules,1948 would reveal

that Ext.P8 document is not a document maintained

as per the provisions of the Act, 1948 and the

Rules thereunder. Further, the petitioner had

sufficient opportunity to produce the statutory

documents to substantiate their contentions before

the authority and could have been examined

2025:KER:47111

competent person to substantiate their contentions.

The petitioner, having not done so, cannot contend

that the details of wages given by the 1st

respondent in the claim statement are without any

basis and that the authority, while issuing Ext.P7

has not adjudicated the claim in a proper

perspective.

10. In view of the above facts and

circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with

Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent and the writ

petition is accordingly dismissed.

The trial court records shall be transmitted

to the 2nd respondent forthwith.

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE

2025:KER:47111

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14137/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 01.06.2021 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN MWA-

12A/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY IN MWA-12A/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY IN MWA

-12A/2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN MWA-12A/2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COMPANY IN MWA-

12A/2018 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT IN MWA-

12A/2018 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT FROM 2009 TO 2015 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7(4) (B) OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE LETTER NO. REF :