Uttarakhand High Court
Kanahiya Lal Polytechnic vs Sri Sushil Kumar on 6 April, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1928 of 2010 (M/S)
Kanahiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee .....Petitioner
Vs.
Sri Sushil Kumar ...Respondent
Advocate: Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner.
None appeared for the respondent.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
2. The petitioner is an aided polytechnic. In the present writ petition,
the petitioner has given a challenge to an order which was passed on 28.08.2010
by the court of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar in Case No. M.W.A
04 of 2008, Sri Sushil Kumar vs. M/s K.L. Polytechnic, and as a consequence of
the adjudication made by the learned court of Additional Commissioner, by the
impugned order, which is under challenge. The Additional Commissioner while
determining the matter in the exercise of its powers under Section 20(3) of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, had determined the minimum wages payable to the
workman/respondent to the tune of Rs.1,41,382/-.
3. The principle argument, which has been raised by the counsel for
the petitioner in the present writ petition, is that the provisions of Minimum
Wages Act, may not be attracted in the case of the respondent/workman, for the
reason being that at the time, when he was inducted and engaged into the
services with the respondent, he was inducted on contractual basis and hence he
may not be falling within the ambit of consideration for the grant of Minimum
Wages Act of 1948. Hence, the principle enunciated under Section 20(2) of the
Act, may not apply in the instant case.
4. On the contrary if the finding which had been recorded, in the
impugned order, which has been passed by the court of Additional
Commissioner are taken into consideration, the finding has been recorded that
the workman has worked with the petitioner with effect from 07.08.1995 till
13.08.2007, in the capacity of being an electrician and was working in the
manner as if he was a permanent employee of the petitioner. For assigning the
aforesaid aspect, the Court has taken into consideration, the entry, which was
made in the appendix column 9, wherein as per the order on record, which was
placed on record the status of workman having continued to work in the said
capacity for the aforesaid period of determination of the Minimum Wages Act,
was shown to have been established by evidence on record itself, in view of the
findings, which has been recorded by the learned Assistant Labour
Commissioner.
5. Ultimately, I find that the logic, which has been assigned
particularly, in the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment, while
appreciating the evidence on record, the continuity of service of the workman
and the status of the workman, being a contract was not a fact, which was
established by the petitioner by any independent evidence. On the contrary, the
Labour Commissioner had observed that though it was pleaded that the
workman was working in the status of being a contractual employee, but there
was no evidence lead to the contrary to establish the said fact and nature of
appointment and in fact the order of Appointment No.3090 dated 07.08.1995, if
that is taken into consideration, it does not show the status of appointment of the
respondent/workman, as to be contractual.
6. Having gone through the reasons, assigned in the impugned order,
the determination which had been made do not suffer from any perversity or
misreading of evidence as such, hence, it does not call for any interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and
the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
06.04.2021
Arti
