Non-consideration of objections in minimum wage claims warrants reassessment by authority.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2026 The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P3 by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner contends that she was the Coordinator of a technical institution named Newport College of Technology and VTC, Kaloor, Ernakulam.

2. The issue involved in this case is that, under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act , 1948 (in short, ‘the Act’), a complaint was filed by the Assistant Labour Officer, and the petitioner was summoned by the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner objection, as evident from Ext.P2. It is also stated that she is not the employer of the institution and that she is only a paid staff member therein. The allegations are stated to be false, and none of these persons had submitted any claim petition before the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent raised the issue without verifying the attendance register or any other document and appears to have done so for extraneous considerations.

3. The objection filed by the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P2, specifically pointed out that Smt. Sherina Simon and Smt. Sreemol V. were not employees and that they functioned as student counsellors for a few hours, and that Sri Kailas was paid more than the minimum wages. None of them had filed any complaint nor were summoned for evidence. The petitioner produced all the records, including the attendance register and wage register. However, the authority which considered the issue directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount towards minimum wages as per order dated 19.01.2019.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint forwarded by the Assistant Labour Officer, 1st Circle, Ernakulam, under Section 20 (2) of the Act. The Assistant Labour Officer inspected the establishment of the petitioner and found that three employees, namely Smt. Sherina Simon, Smt. Sreemol V. and Sri. Kailas, were not receiving minimum wages, which was totally against the law. The Assistant Labour Officer issued an inspection order on 02.11.2017 directing the petitioner to rectify the defects and produce the records in his office, but the petitioner did not respond to the same.

5. Subsequently, the Assistant Labour Officer issued a show cause notice on 30.01.2018 directing the petitioner to pay the difference between the minimum wages and the payment actually made, however, even that was not responded to. Accordingly, the respondent took the application on file and notice was issued to the parties. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed her objection. However, she failed to appear before the authority for hearing on 01.12.2018, 22.12.2018, 29.12.2018 and 05.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was set ex parte.

6. In this regard, the learned Government Pleader has produced the statements given by the so-called employees as per Exts. R1(b) and R1(c), wherein it is contended that they are employees and that certain amounts are due to them towards minimum wages.

7. I have heard Sri.A.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jimmy George, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. On a consideration of the contentions and a perusal of the records, it appears that though Ext.P2 objection was submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner claimed that she had appeared before the 1^st respondent on 05.06.2018, 20.10.2018 and 03.11.2018, the impugned order specifically states that the applicant filed a proof affidavit and that inspection report No.1084/2017 dated 02.11.2017 was marked as Ext.A1. The show cause notice No.1084/2017 dated 27.11.2017 issued b