W.P.(MD)No.20786 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:

21.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD)No.20786 of 2021

and W.M.P.No.17401 of 2021

Little Drops Home for the Elderly

Head Office,

(A public charitable Trust, regd.

Represented by

M.Ramesh (Trustee)

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour

Dindigul District.

2.M.Kullammal

3.The Department of Social Defence

Rep. by its Director

No.300 Purasaivakkam High Road,

Kellys, Chennai

... Respondents

(R3 has been suo-motu impleaded

vide Court dated 22.11.2021)

PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records

pertaining to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent in PWA

No.6/2019 dated 07.09.2021 (received on 22.10.2021) and quash the

same.

For Petitioner

: Ms.Porkodi Karnan

For Respondents

: Mr.M.Ramesh for R1&R3

Government Advocate

Mr.A.Arul Jenifer for R2

ORDER

The order passed by the competent authority under the Payment

of Wages Act 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under

challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner is Little Drops Home for the Elderly, which

is a public charitable trust registered under the Indian Trust Act

1882 and the petitioner states that the Trust is engaged in the

rescue and rehabilitation of abandoned destitute elderly persons

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD)No.20786 of 2021

found on the streets. The petitioner organisation was started in

the year 1991 moved by the plight of the countless homeless old men

and women, who are in the particular locality. It is contended that

the second respondent, who was the native of the particular area

approached the old age home of the petitioner along with the family

members and relatives on 18.11.2018 and vandalise the entire home

and harassed the women staff and residents. It is contended that

the second respondent has caused loss to the properties belong to

the petitioner organisation and a criminal complaint was filed

against the second respondent and his associates at the Nilakottai

Police Station, which is yet to be registered.

3. This apart, the second respondent filed a petition before

the first respondent claiming payment of wages for the period from

15.03.2016 to 31.01.2019 by submitting some forged and fabricated

documents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the

petitioner created forged documents and filed such documents before

the first respondent and obtained the orders of direction to pay the

wages under the Act, which is not in consonance with the provisions

of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission

that it is a public charitable trust and therefore, the Act would

not be applicable to the petitioner Institution. Secondly, it is

contended that the first respondent considered the case of the

second respondent and passed orders based on the resolution of

appointment, which is forged. Thus, the writ petition is to be

considered.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent

objected the said contention by stating that the service of the

petitioner and his family members were availed. The son of the

second respondent is partly visually impaired and his family members

were also working in the petitioner institution. A resolution for

appointment was passed by the trustees duly signed and the said

document was filed before the first respondent for consideration.

Based on the orders of the appointment, the first respondent granted

the relief to pay the wages and therefore, there is no infirmity as

such in respect of the orders passed by the first respondent.

7. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the lis on hand, this Court

is of the o