Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Kartikere Gram Panchayat Rep. By Its Secretary / Pdo And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri K K Ramesh Raj Urs S/O Krishna Raj Urs And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 20466 of 2017 (L-MW)
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 20, (2), (1) 2 (i), 15(1), - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33, C(2) - Payment of Wages Act 1948 - Section 15(1), 13 (1) (b), (c), 14 - Employee - Non Payment of Minimum Wages - Recovery of Amount - Whether an employee raising an issue as regards non payment of minimum wages is required to continue to be an employee as on date on which the dispute as regards nonpayment of minimum wages is raised - Whether appropriate authority under Section 20 of MW Act can determine amount of minimum wages not paid and impose penalty on employer for non-payment - Whether recovery of any such amount can be made in a proceedings under Section 20 of MW Act or any proceedings under Section 15(1) of Payment of Wages Act 1948 or under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act to resorted to. [Para 20.4]
Finding of the Court: In present case, petitioner-Industry is notified under Minimum Wages Act and minimum wages has also been fixed - Thus there is no dispute as regards applicability of MW Act or minimum wages payable - Such being case, further contention of Sri. Onkar, learned counsel for petitioner that if minimum wages are paid, there would be an impact on financial situation of petitioner is completely untenable and unsustainable - It is for employer to decide how many employees it intends to hire on basis of its ability to pay - Employer after hiring employee cannot be heard to say that since he does not have money, he is not able to pay minimum wages - This submission is even more peculiar for reason that even according to Sri. Onkar, learned counsel for petitioner, employee was only working for only one hour a day - If that be so, it was for petitioner to have not only such number of persons so as to get most services out of them per day as might have been possible - Since it is better to have services of fewer people who are paid in full rather than larger number of persons who are not paid anything at all - It is for that reason that it was held that Section 20(1) has not application and remedies under Section 15(1) of Payment of Wages Act 1948 has to be resorted to - In present case as held supra, there is no dispute as regards applicability of MW Act and or minimum wages payable - Hence, there would be no requirement in Court considered view for enforcement under Section 15(1) of MW Act having been determined - An appropriate Authority under Section 20 of MW Act can determine amount of minimum wages not paid and impose penalty on employer for non payment so long as there is no dispute as regards applicability of MW Act and minimum wages payable - If there is no dispute as regards both above matters, then under Section 20 of MW Act itself, recovery of minimum wages not paid could be made without resorting to proceeding under Section 15(1) of Payment of Wages Act or under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
2. To grant such other reliefs including the order for the cost which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner-Kartikere Gram Panchayat had appointed respondent No.1 as a ‘waterman’ on 28.2.1998. Respondent No.1, claiming that minimum wages have not been paid in terms of the notification issued by the Government of India dated 17.3.2006, filed a complaint with respondent No.2-Authority to make payment of the balance wage amount from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011 amounting to Rs.98,521/-.
3. Notice having been issued and counter statement having been filed. After hearing the parties, respondent No.2-Authority passed the impugned order wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the balance minimum wages amounting to Rs.98,521/-and further to pay Rs.98,521/-as compensation within 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order. It is, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Sri K B Onkara, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 is not an employee/workman of the petitioner in as much as he was appointed as a ‘waterman’ from 28.9.1998 and has discharged the work of only one hour in a day since the only job of respondent No.1 was either to open the taps/valved or close the taps/valves, which would not take more than one hour a day and as such, he is not employed for the whole day and therefore, he is not an ‘employee’.
5. Secondly, he submits that when the claim petition was submitted on 14.3.2012, respondent No.1 had ceased to be an employee of the petitioner on 4.4.2011 when respondent No.1 stopped coming for work. The claim petition has been submitted beyond the period of one year after respondent No.1 stopped coming for work. No application could have been filed by respondent No.1 since he was not an ‘employee’ of the petitioner as on the date on which the application has been filed and in this regard, he relies on sub section (i) of Section 2 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MW Act’ for brevity), which is reproduced hereunder for convenience:
"employee" means any person who is employed for hire or reward to do any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, in a scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed;”
6. Relying on the same, he submits that for a person to make an application with respondent No.2, such person ought to be in employment. The employment of respondent No.1 having ceased on 4.4.2011, application has been filed 14.3.2012 and that after the period of employment comes to an end, no such application is maintainable.
7. Thirdly, he submits that any claim made under Section 20 of the MW Act could only be for adjudication of the ‘minimum wages’ liable to be paid and there cannot be any ‘recovery proceedings. Claim for recoveries will have to be done either under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948 or under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, he submits that respondent No.2 having directed payment of minimum wages within 30 days is beyond the proviso to Section 20 and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
8. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ATHANI VS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT reported in AIR 1969
Point of Law : Section 33C(2) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as Recovery of money due from an employer.
when there is a payment of wages lesser than the minimum rate of wages payable for an employment, a claim can be raised under section 20(1) of the Act.
The Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain wage claims under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Limitation Act does not apply such claims.
Point of Law : when a statute gives a right and provides a forum of adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the performance of the rights has to be e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive benefit in terms o....
The application for minimum wages was timely filed within six months of the last payment, and the employee was entitled to minimum wages as per the Government Resolution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
