JUDGMENT

The question that arises for resolution is whether the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 can entertain a complaint filed by the Inspector under section 20(2) of the Act, alleging non-payment of minimum wages by an employer.

2. When the Inspectors appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') filed applications alleging that the writ petitioners in these writ petitions who are the employers, refused to pay the minimum wages to its respective employees, the employers claimed that there is no jurisdiction for the Authority under the Act to determine such a question. W.P.(C) No.10835 of 2021 is treated as the leading case and the facts of the said case alone are narrated in this judgment.

3. Petitioner is running a textile business, having several showrooms all over the State. The Assistant Labour Officer, who is the Inspector appointed under section 19 of the Act, conducted an inspection on the establishment of the petitioner on 20.12.2019 and alleged that wages paid by the petitioner to 31 employees were less than the minimum wages fixed for the period, June 2018 to November 2018. The Inspector filed an application before the Authority appointed under section 20 of the Act, as MWA No.45 of 2019, alleging that in spite of show- cause notice dated 19.04.2019, alleging non-payment of minimum wages to its employees, no satisfactory reply was furnished and hence a direction is to be issued under section

20(3) of the Act for payment of the differential wages.

4. Pursuant to receipt of notice, petitioner filed a counter-

statement stating that the employees had never raised a complaint against non-payment of minimum wages. While denying the allegations, petitioner also raised the question of maintainability of the complaint under the Act and requested consideration of the said question as a preliminary issue.

5. Petitioner raised the question of maintainability, alleging that there is no jurisdiction for the Authority under the Act to consider the complaint against non-payment of the minimum wages. The question of maintainability was considered as a preliminary issue, and the Authority decided against the petitioner, by Ext.P5 order. By the impugned order, it was held that the Authority had the jurisdiction to decide the claim and the application was found maintainable under section 20(2) of the Act.

6. Since identical issues are involved in the connected three writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.27494 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.679 of 2022 filed by the very same petitioner except W.P.(C) No. 4823 of 2020, all the four writ petitions were heard together. Ext.P5 is the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.10835 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.27494 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.4823 of 2020, while in W.P.(C) No.679 of 2022, Ext.P4 is the order assailed.

7. Sri.N.Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Adv. Pooja Ramachandran vehemently contended that a complaint at the instance of the Inspector is not maintainable under the Minimum Wages Act as the remedy of an aggrieved employee is to initiate proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act or before other authorities and not through a complaint before the Authority under the Act. It was argued that the power under section 20 is only to fix the rate of wages and not to adjudicate on the quantum of wages paid or payable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in cases where there is an alleged short payment of wages lesser than the minimum wages fixed, the remedy is to move the Labour Court under section 33(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1942 or under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the decisions in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and Others (AIR 1969 SC 1335), which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Sadu and Others (1991 1 LLM 304) apart from the decisions in Union of India v. Kameshwar Dubey and Others (1988 (2) LLJ 302), Gulab Govindrao Lanj