Disputed questions of fact under Article 226 are not reviewable; the enforcement of minimum wages is upheld.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.41304/2024, 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, 2^nd respondent preferred a complaint under Section 29 (2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), claiming that minimum wages for the period from November 2014 to April 2015 was not paid to the third respondent, who was an employee of the shop and that she is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,640/- 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 a hour daily during the said period, she 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 written statement contending that the employee has been engaged for cleaning works only for a period of one hour. It was also contended in the written statement that as per Ext.P3 Circular issued by the appellant Corporation, duration of the cleaning works in FL-1 shop is strictly limited to one hour per day and that the minimum wages, as prescribed in Exts.P1 and P2 have been paid.

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.20,640/- as arrears of minimum wages for the period from November 2014 to April 2015 and a sum of Rs.5,160/- 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 circumstance, 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 more than an hour daily or that minimum wages were not paid for that period. He submitted that as per Ext.P3, sweepers are and, can be engaged by the appellant Corporation only one hour per day and that the minimum wages, as specified in Exts.P1 and P2, has already been paid to the third respondent for that period.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the par