Kerala High Court
Jose Thomas vs Assistant Labour Officer on 5 March, 2025
2025:KER:18670
Crl.M.C.No.2018 of 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2018 OF 2020
IN ST NO.2862 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, MUTTOM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JOSE THOMAS
AGED 38 YEARS, PULIMOOTTIL LIGHT AND PUMPS,
KALARIKAL BAZAR, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND,
THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685 684.
BY ADV
TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST., PIN - 685 584.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY ADV.
SRI SANGEETHARAJ NR, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:18670
Crl.M.C.No.2018 of 2020
-2-
G. GIRISH, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2018 of 2020
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2862 of 2019 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muttom, a case registered on the
basis of the complaint filed by the Assistant Labour Officer, Thodupuzha,
alleging the violation of Rule 21A(1) and Rule 21A(2) of the Kerala
Minimum Wages Rules, 1958. In the present petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in
the said case.
2. The main challenge raised by the petitioner against the
criminal prosecution instituted against him in S.T.No.2862 of 2019 before
the learned Magistrate is that, a Division Bench of this Court, in Tata
Consultancy Services Limited v. State of Kerala [2020 (1) KLT
686], had held that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21A of the Kerala Minimum Wages
Rules, 1958, was ultra vires to the statute.
2025:KER:18670
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.
4. The amendments brought out to Rule 21A of the Kerala
Minimum Wages Rules, 1958, vide notification dated 08.07.2015, were
challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition filed by Tata
Consultancy Services Ltd. As the decision in that writ petition was not in
favour of the petitioners therein, it was challenged before a Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.No.979 of 2018. After considering the issue in detail,
the Division Bench held in the aforesaid writ appeal that Sub-rule (2) to
Rule 21A of the amended Rules of 1958, was ultra vires to the statute.
However, all the other amendments made vide the aforesaid notification
were upheld. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court has
been reported in Tata Consultancy Services Limited (supra).
5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the violation alleged
in the complaint preferred by the Assistant Labour Officer took place during
the year 2019, and hence it is to be looked into whether the law laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision has got
retrospective application. In that regard, it has to be held that when a
particular provision has been declared as ultra vires, the settled principles
2025:KER:18670
of law is that the said provision would be deemed to have been obliterated
from the statute book. When viewed in the above perspective, the law laid
down by this Court in Tata Consultancy Services Limited (supra) has to
be considered as applicable to those complaints preferred even prior to the
said decision. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the
initiation of prosecution against him for the violation of Rule 21A(1) of the
Kerala Minimum Wages Rules, 1958, is well founded. However, on going
through the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no reason to
interfere with the complaint relating to the violation of Rule 21A(2)
highlighted in the complaint filed by the Assistant Labour Officer. As a
conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution against
the petitioner, insofar as it relates to the violation of Rule 21A(1) of the
Kerala Minimum Wages Rules, 1958, is liable to be terminated.
In the result, the petition stands allowed in part as follows :-
(i) The prosecution initiated against the petitioner in
S.T.No.2862 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Muttom, insofar as it relates to the violation
of Rule 21A(1) of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules, 1958,
stands quashed.
2025:KER:18670
(ii) The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the
complaint as if the violation alleged thereunder is only in
respect of Rule 21A(2) of the Kerala Minimum Wages Rules,
1958.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded
2025:KER:18670
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED
21.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
11.06.2019.
ANNEXURE 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT TAKEN
ON FILE BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, MUTTOM AS ST 2862/2019.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2019
REPORTED IN 2020 (1) KLT 686.
ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN
CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1659/2020 BY
HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
