Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C)No.41118/2024 challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2025 dismissing the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P4 and P5 and quashing the same.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner Corporation is not liable to pay any amount as arrears of minimum wages as directed in Ext.P4 order.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner Corporation is not liable to pay any amount as compensation as directed in Ext.P4 order.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st respondent to stop all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5.”

3. The appellant is a company fully owned and controlled by the Government of Kerala. The appellant runs 278 FL-1 outlets in State of Kerala. While so, the 2^nd respondent preferred a complaint under Section 29 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act claiming that minimum wages for the period from September 2016 to February 2017 was not paid to the third respondent, who was an employee in the shop and that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.35,000/- as arrears of minimum wages. As per the claim petition, the Corporation, being an establishment scheduled under the Act, is governed by the provisions of the Act and, since the third respondent has worked for more than 6 hours in a day during the said period, he is entitled for the minimum wages. The afore complaint was filed on the basis of Annexure A1 inspection report of the 2^nd respondent.

4. On receipt of notice, the appellant filed a written statement contending that sweepers were engaged for cleaning jobs only for an hour and that minimum wages have been paid to them as per Exts.P1 and P2.

5. The first respondent, after considering the materials on record, issued Ext.P4 order dated 18.06.2024 holding that the appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- as arrears of minimum wages for the period from September 2016 to February 2017 and also a sum of Rs.8750/- as compensation to the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice directing the appellant to remit the amount within seven days. It is in such circumstances, the appellant filed this writ petition seeking the afore reliefs.

6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

7. Heard Adv.Naveen T, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv.Thulasi K.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent and Adv.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.P4 order has been passed by the first respondent without any materials. He submitted that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the third respondent has worked for the duration as claimed. He submitted that as per Ext.P3, sweepers are and, can only be engaged by the appellant Corporation for one hour a day and that minimum wages, as specified in Exts.P1 & P2 has already been paid to the third respondent.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondent submitted that Ext.P4 decision has been rendered by the first respondent on the basis of the materials available before him. She argued that the complaint was filed by the 2^nd respondent on the basis of Annexure A1 inspection report filed by him after taking statement of the employee, who was working there at the rel