Minimum Wages Act serves to secure workers' rights by mandating minimum wage payments; compliance is legally enforced.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2026 P.M.Manoj, J.

The above intra-court appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 03.02.2025 in WP(C) No.35352 of 2024.

2. The challenge is against the dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the appellant. Originally the writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to quash Ext.P3 order of the authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’).

3. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner in the writ petition is a Gynecologist and the owner of Thulasi Malabar Hospital, Iritty. Based on an inspection allegedly conducted on 25.09.2015 by the 1^st Respondent, Assistant Labour Officer at the petitioner's establishment, it was reported that the minimum wages had not been paid to the employees. Therefore, the 1^st respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kannur, who is the authority under the Act, as MCP No.9/2016 under Section 22 of the Act. The complaint in the said petition was that the petitioner had failed to pay minimum wages for the period from March 2015 to August 2015 to six employees under her establishment, who are respondents 3 to 8 in both the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. The total amount of such arrears was Rs.1,24,848/-. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the 2^nd respondent and preferred her counter objections, primarily contending that respondents 3, 4 and 6 had resigned from service much prior to the inspection, that they had received their wages, and that there was no liability to pay any minimum wages.

4. During the proceedings before the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner was represented by her power of attorney holder. The 1^st respondent was examined as AW1, and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on his side. On the side of the petitioner, the Manager, who is the petitioner’s power of attorney holder, was examined as RW1. It is contended that, on an erroneous appreciation of the facts, law and evidence, the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order directing the petitioner to remit the amount as per the claim statement produced by the 1^st respondent, namely, the amount due for the period from March 2015 to August 2015 (six months) in respect of six employees, totalling Rs.1,24,848/-. The 2^nd respondent also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.31,212/- under Section 23 (1) of the Act. The amounts were directed to be remitted before the authority within thirty days, failing which, revenue recovery proceedings were to be initiated.

5. On considering the facts involved in the case, the learned Single Judge found that the Minimum Wages Act is a labour welfare legislation. The object of the Act is to secure the right of the workers by fixing minimum rate of wages for various types of employments mentioned in Parts I and II of the Schedule to the Act. It was also noted that there was no appearance on behalf of respondents 3 to 8. However, on examining Ext.P3, the learned Single Judge found that respondents 3 to 8 were entitled only to a meagre amount towards arrears of minimum wages. It was further observed that they could ill afford to appear before this Court to defend the case. Therefore, considering the nature of the litigation, the Court decided not to compel their appearance. No costs were imposed on the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed.

6. A perusal of the contentions raised in the writ appeal would show that no substantial grounds have been urged, except the usual averments that the judgment of the learned Single Judge: (i) is incorrect; (ii) ought to have found that the appellant has no liability to pay minimum wages; (iii) failed to consider the various contentions and exhibits placed before the Court by the appellant; and that (iv) the judgment is perverse and that the learned Single Judge f