2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19699
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA, J
AMBAR A RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 118/2024
Advocates:
SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP; SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R15; SRI. SUNDAR RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R16 TO R29
The definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act is broad enough to include the Government Printing Press, obligating the State to pay minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act.
Headnote:(A) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - The State challenged the Labour Commissioner's order awarding Rs.2,23,153.80/- to 27 contract labourers for unpaid minimum wages. The State contended that the Government Printing Press is not an industry under the Act and claimed the respondents were paid according to government circulars. The Labour Commissioner found the claim valid under the Act. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Definition of 'Industry' - Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines 'industry' broadly, which the court applied to determine the applicability of the MW Act. (Paras 10-11)
(C) Employer-Employee Relationship - The MW Act defines 'employer' broadly, ensuring the relationship exists for the Act's application. (Paras 12-14)
(D) Minimum Wages - The court affirmed that statutory minimum wages must be paid regardless of government circulars. (Paras 15-17) (E) Delay in Claim - The delay in filing the claim was attributed to the Inspector, and the court found the Labour Commissioner's decision justified. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The respondents were contract labourers at the Government Press from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004, claiming unpaid minimum wages.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Commissioner awarded the claim based on the MW Act.
Issues: Whether the Government Printing Press qualifies as an industry under the MW Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'industry' under the ID Act encompasses the Government Printing Press, obligating the State to pay minimum wages.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER
The State has preferred this writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 02.05.2007 passed by the Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (‘the MW Act’ for short), whereby, the Labour Commissioner awarded the difference of salary to the extent of sum of Rs.2,23,153.80/- to 27 labourers.
2. The respondent are labourers appointed on contract basis in the office of the Assistant Director, Government Press from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 and the Government Press has paid rate fixed on daily wages based on the Government order. The labourers filed claim petition before the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the MW Act in the year 2005 contending that the petitioners are not paid the minimum wages as provided under the Act.
3. The State filed objections inter alia contending that they are not liable to pay any wages under the provisions of the Act, since the Government Printing Press comes under the Education Department, Government of Karnataka and it is not an industry. The Labour Commissioner on consideration of the material on record awarded difference of salary to the extent of Rs.2,23,153.80/- to the 27 labourers. Hence, the present petition by the State.
4. Heard Smt Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for the petitioner-State, Sri V. Laxminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for Smt Anusha .L, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 15 and Sri Sundar Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.16 to 29 and perused the material on record.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions raised in the petition, learned HCGP would mainly urge the following grounds:
That the Government Printing Press comes under the Education Department, Government of Karnataka and is not an industry, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable.
That the 27 contract labourers have been paid in accordance with the Government circular and the State is not liable to pay any wages to the workman.
That the claim of the respondents is clearly barred by limitation and the same ought not to
have been entertained by the respondent- authority.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order passed by the Labour Commissioner is justify, legal, valid and does not warrant any interference and liable to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that material on record would indicate that the respondents are in work from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 on piece-rate work at 10:00 a.m to 5:30 p.m for six months, for which the minimum wage is applicable under the Act has to be paid and would contend that there is no merit in the petition filed by the State and sought to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Jyothi Home Industries and Others vs State of Karnataka 1 (Jyothi Home Industries) .
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is an industry or not is necessary for consideration of an application filed by the claimants seeking wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948?”
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. The definition under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short) defines ‘industry’, which reads as under:
"
2.Definitions
: In this Act, unless there is
anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (j) "industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or 1 WP Nos.2309-2313/1982 & connected matters D.D. 16.07.1982
industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;"
11. The definition in Section 2 (j) of the ID Act has given ‘industry’ a wi
Click Here to Read the rest of this document