Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
M/S SHYMAS AUTO SALES, SRI. T.M. BASHEER, SRI.HASHIM BASHEER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 8392 OF 2019 | CRL.MC NO. 8413 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, SHRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN, SMT.T.N.SREEKALA, SHRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL, SRI.M.B.SOORI, SRI.BABU M.
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.BINEESH, SRI.SANAL P.RAJ
The applicability of the Minimum Wages Act involves disputed facts that cannot be resolved in a criminal miscellaneous case; proper adjudication is reserved for trial proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sections 19(1) and 85(1) - Quashing of proceedings - The petitioners challenge the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to their establishments, claiming factory status with registration issues - The court finds that it is a disputed question of fact not amenable to determination in a criminal misc. case - Dismissal with liberty to raise all contentions before the trial court. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Registration under law - It is emphasized that the petitioners must follow appropriate procedures regarding the registration of their establishments. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused in cases arising from violations observed under Minimum Wages Act after inspection of their establishments engaged in automobile sales and service.
Findings of Court:
The court dismisses both miscellaneous cases as the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act involves disputed facts that should be examined during trial.
Issues: The chief issue is whether the petitioners' establishments fall within the ambit of the Minimum Wages Act and the correctness of their current registration status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlights that such disputes regarding the interpretation of the status of the establishments cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner in a criminal misc. case.
Result: Both criminal miscellaneous cases dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputes regarding applicability of minimum wages act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the status of establishments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's ruling on the nature of disputed facts. (Para 6) |
ORDER
[Crl.MC Nos.8392/2019, 8413/2019]
The petitioners are the accused in ST Nos. 5121 of 2018 and
5098 of 2018 on the files of the First Class Judicial Magistrate Court – I, Alappuzha (For short, the trial court). Crl.M.C No.8392 of 2019 has been filed to quash all further proceedings in ST No.5121 of 2018 and Crl.M.C No.8413 of 2019 has been filed to quash all further proceedings in ST No.5098 of 2018.
2. The 1st petitioner is the employer and the 2nd petitioner is the Manager of M/s. Shymas Auto Sales and M/s. Shymas Honda Service Centre, which is engaged in the business of sales and service of automobiles.
3. The Inspector appointed under Section 19 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 inspected the complainant’s establishment and noticed violations under Rules 29(1), 29(5), 21A(1), 21A(2), 29(8) of the Kerala Minimum Wages (Central)
Rules, 1950. Accordingly, the prosecution was initiated.
4. The petitioners preferred these criminal miscellaneous cases to quash the proceedings on the ground that the Minimum Wages Act and Rules are not applicable to the petitioners’
establishment.
5. I have heard Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.E.C.Bineesh and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutors.
6. Relying on Annexure-A6 notification, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners’ establishment would not fall under the Minimum Wages Act or Rules. According to the learned counsel, the establishment of the petitioners is not one coming under any item of scheduled employment in Annexure-A6 notification. However, in Annexure- A6 notification, “shop and commercial establishments” is included under the schedule of employment. According to the petitioners, their establishment will not come under shops and commercial establishments, but is a factory notified under Section 85 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948. However, the petitioners did not obtain registration under the Factories Act at the time of inspection by the Inspector appointed under the Minimum Wages Act. They obtained registration later on. At that time, it was registered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The case of the petitioners is that it was wrongly registered under the said Act at the instance of the Labour OfÏcer and subsequently they have initiated steps to cancel the registration. Thus, the question whether the petitioners’ establishment is a “shops or commercial establishment” so as to attract the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in this Crl.M.C. Hence, both these criminal miscellaneous cases are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take up all the contentions raised in this Crl.M.C. before the trial court, including the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act to the petitioners’ establishment.
