Minimum wages must comply with statutory notifications, and equal pay principles apply to all employees regardless of contract terms.

JUDGMENT :

(VIJU ABRAHAM, J.)

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order whereby the petitioners were directed to pay the minimum wages to the employees of the 1^st petitioner hospital engaged through the 2^nd petitioner.

2. The 1st petitioner is a private hospital and the 2^nd petitioner is a facility management company involved in providing housekeeping(Cleaning/Sweeping) staff for various establishments on a contract basis. Ext.P1 agreement was executed between the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners to provide sufficient staff to the 1^st petitioner for cleaning/sweeping, during the agreement period. The 2^nd petitioner company is an establishment registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. Petitioners rely on Ext.P3, minimum wage notification issued by the Government wherein the daily wages for sweeping and cleaning in Municipality and Corporation areas for 8 hours was fixed at Rs.150/- and other areas at Rs.135/- and submits that the 2^nd petitioner is paying the minimum wages as contemplated in Ext.P3. Later Ext.P4 minimum wage notification was issued in respect of private hospitals,etc., wherein the “house keeper” category coming under Group 6 and are entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.8,100-165-8,925- 180-9,825.

3. The specific case of the petitioners is that since sweeping and cleaning category is not included in Ext.P4, the notification applicable to the petitioners is Ext.P3 and that they are paying wages more than what is stipulated in Ext.P3. While so the Assistant Labour Officer, Malappuram inspected the premises and registered Minimum Wages Application No.29/2017 before the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P5 counter statement and the 2^nd petitioner has also submitted Ext.P6 counter statement and also Ext.P7 additional counter statement. Without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, by Ext.P8 order the 2^nd respondent directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.7,31,679/- being the arrears and an amount of Rs.7,31,679/- as compensation to the 34 employees worked during 10/2015 to 3/2016 in the 1^st petitioner establishment. Aggrieved by the same, Ext.P10 review petition was filed and challenging Ext.P8, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that by Ext.P1, the 2^nd petitioner has agreed to employ workmen for cleaning purpose and the same was taken note of by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P8 and also in the table provided in Ext.P8 order wherein the 34 employees were shown as working as 'cleaners'. On the strength of the same, it is the contention of the petitioners that since employees are working as cleaners and the 2^nd respondent has entered into a specific finding to that effect, only Ext.P3 minimum wage notification will apply and they have already complied with the said minimum wage notification.

5. The learned Government Pleader based on the detailed counter affidavit filed would submit that going by Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act ,1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1948) the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette should fix minimum rate of wages for any employment. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that invoking the said power, employment in Private Hospitals, Dispensaries, Pharmacies, Clinical lab, Scanning Centres, X-ray units and other related institutions were included as serial No.68 in the schedule attached to the Act, 1948. After such inclusion, Ext.P4 notification was issued specifically for persons employed in private hospitals, pharmacies, clinical laboratories, scanning centres, X-ray unit and other related establishment in the State