Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs The Labour Inspector on 15 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597
WP No. 15721 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15721 OF 2007 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT PRESS ,
PEENYA, BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT PRESS,
KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)
AND:
1. THE LABOUR INSPECTOR,
KOLAR CIRCLE, KOLAR.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
Location: HIGH AUTHORITY UNDER THE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948,
KOLAR.
3. SOMASHEKHAR,
S/O HANUMAPPA,
KULLADEVI GRAM AND POST,
DUGGASANDRA HOBLI,
MULABAGILU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597
WP No. 15721 of 2007
4. SURESH BABU,
C/O GOVINDAPPA,
KHADRIPURA ROAD, 9TH CROSS,
KOLAR.
5. V. MANJUNATH,
KATARIPALYA,
SHARADA TALKIES,
MAIN ROAD, KOLAR.
6. K.H. AMARAVATHI,
S/O K.H. HANUMAGOWDA,
KURUBURU GRAMA,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
7. V. NAGAPPA,
C/O VENKATASWAMY,
SHETTY HALL, YADANURU HOBLI,
SREENIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
8. J.S. LOKESH,
S/O G.N. SWAMINATH,
GARUDANA HALLI GRAMA,
MADIHAJA POST,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
9. S.V. SHIVAMURTHY,
C/O S.T VENKATARAMANAPPA,
D.NO.1/1338, SRI RAMANA KRUPA,
NEAR NEW ELECTRICAL ANJANI,
NORTH EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI, KOLAR.
10. V. SREEDHAR,
C/O VENKATAPPA,
KARANGI KATTE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597
WP No. 15721 of 2007
SHANTHINAGARA, 6TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN ROAD, KOLAR.
11. G.V. SRINIVASA REDDY,
C/O VENKAARAMANAREDDY,
GONDAVARAPALLI,
SIDDAPALLI CROSS,
CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
12. S. MUNIRAJU,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
NEAR SAINTANNS SCHOOL, KOLAR.
13. V. VIJAYA KUMAR,
S/O S. VEERABHADRAPPA,
ANJANAHALLI POST,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
14. V. SHIVASHANKAR,
C/O MUNIRAMANAPPA,
AD COLONY TAMAK POST,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
15. NAGARAJ S.M,
C/O MUNIRAJAPPA,
NO. 208, KURUBARAPETE,
SOLIBELKE TALUK AND POST,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
16. J. VENKATESH,
C/O MASTRI JAYARAMAPPA,
SANTEGATE, BHOVI COLONY,
2ND MAIN ROAD, KOLAR DISTRICT.
17. K.M. BABU,
KULLURU GRAMA,
BELTHAMANGALA HOBLI,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597
WP No. 15721 of 2007
BANGARPETE.
18. M.S. UDAI KUMAR,
S/O R.M SRINIVASAIAH,
TANK RAOD, CHINTAMANI,
KOLAR DISTICT,
19. C.N. SUDARSHAN,
C/O CHANDRAPPA,
VASAVI ROAD,
NEAR MARAMMA GUDI,
SHIDLAGHATTA, KOLAR DISTRICT.
20. C. NAGESH KUMAR,
C/O R. CHANDRASHEKAIAH,
MYALARAGANGA, ANJANI
NORTH BLOCK, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
21. V. MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
NO. 271, NEAR SHARADA TALKIES,
(OLD MILK DIARY), KATARIPALYA, KOLAR.
22. B.V. LEELAVATHI,
D/O VALAPPA,
TIRUMALAHATH,
SANTHAHALLI (POST),
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
23. H.R. PRADEEP KUMAR,
S/O RAMAKRISHNA,
NO. 1876, SHARADA TALKIES ROAD,
KOLAR.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597
WP No. 15721 of 2007
24. N. SANTOSH,
S/O C.V. NARAYANASWAMY,
NO. 1150, SHANTHINAGAR,
NEAR GOKUL COLLEGE, KOLAR.
25. M. NARAYANSWAMY,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
MANASATHNAHALLI,
YALABURGA (POST),
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
26. S. RAJENDRA,
S/O M. SIDDAIAH,
NO. 2870, 14TH E MAIN,
8TH CROSS, TRC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU.
27. V. CHANDRAKUMAR,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
BELTHUR, PREMASI LAYOUT,
KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU.
28. H.G. SREENIVASAN,
S/O GOLAN H.R SRI RAMA TEMPLE,
4TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.
29. C. NARAYANASWAMY,
C/O CHOWDAPPA,
MANISHETTAHALLI,
KUDIYANURU POST,
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597
WP No. 15721 of 2007
SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R15;
SRI. SUNDAR RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R16 TO R29)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948, KOLAR
DISTRICT, KOLAR AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY APPOINTED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948,
KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR DATED 02.05.2007 VIDE ANNEX-D,
BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETTION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 02.05.2007 passed by the Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ('the MW Act' for short), whereby, the Labour Commissioner awarded the difference of salary to the extent of sum of Rs.2,23,153.80/- to 27 labourers.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
2. The respondent are labourers appointed on contract basis in the office of the Assistant Director, Government Press from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 and the Government Press has paid rate fixed on daily wages based on the Government order. The labourers filed claim petition before the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the MW Act in the year 2005 contending that the petitioners are not paid the minimum wages as provided under the Act.
3. The State filed objections inter alia contending that they are not liable to pay any wages under the provisions of the Act, since the Government Printing Press comes under the Education Department, Government of Karnataka and it is not an industry. The Labour Commissioner on consideration of the material on record awarded difference of salary to the extent of Rs.2,23,153.80/- to the 27 labourers. Hence, the present petition by the State.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
4. Heard Smt Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for the petitioner-State, Sri V. Laxminarayana, learned Senior Counsel for Smt Anusha .L, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 15 and Sri Sundar Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.16 to 29 and perused the material on record.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions raised in the petition, learned HCGP would mainly urge the following grounds:
i. That the Government Printing Press comes under the Education Department, Government of Karnataka and is not an industry, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable.
ii. That the 27 contract labourers have been paid in accordance with the Government circular and the State is not liable to pay any wages to the workman.
iii. That the claim of the respondents is clearly barred by limitation and the same ought not to -9- NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 have been entertained by the respondent-
authority.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order passed by the Labour Commissioner is justify, legal, valid and does not warrant any interference and liable to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that material on record would indicate that the respondents are in work from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2004 on piece-rate work at 10:00 a.m to 5:30 p.m for six months, for which the minimum wage is applicable under the Act has to be paid and would contend that there is no merit in the petition filed by the State and sought to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Jyothi Home Industries and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 Others vs State of Karnataka1 (Jyothi Home Industries).
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is an industry or not is necessary for consideration of an application filed by the claimants seeking wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948?"
9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. The definition under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the ID Act' for short) defines 'industry', which reads as under:
"2.Definitions: In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
(j) "industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or 1 WP Nos.2309-2313/1982 & connected matters D.D. 16.07.1982
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;"
11. The definition in Section 2 (j) of the ID Act has given 'industry' a wide meaning embracing within its ambit, a large number of organization which come within the nature of institution set out but is essential in every case where the question is raised whether an establishment is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the ID Act that certain relevant factors have to be found.
12. Section 2(k) of the ID Act defines 'industrial dispute', the provisions are enumerated under the ID Act and not from the MW Act, here it has to be the existence of 'employee and employer relationship' is a sina quo non for the application of the Act. In order to protect the interest of the employees, the scope under the Act is a wider in perspective than the ID Act. The 'employer' defined under Section 2 (e) of the MW Act, which reads as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 "2. Interpretation: In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
(e) "employer" means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act, and includes, except in sub-section (3) of section 26,-"
13. Whereas the 'employer' defined under Section 2
(g) of the ID Act, which reads as under:
"2.Definitions: In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
(g) "employer" means-
(i) in relation any industry carried on by or to under the authority of any department of [the Central Government or a State Government,] the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department;
(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that authority;"
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
14. Plain reading of the definition of 'employer' under Section 2 (e) of the MW Act prescribes that 'any person who employs' falls under the category of employer, wherein the definition of the 'employer' in the ID Act is solely based on the definition of 'industry', therefore, the petitioner and respondents qualified to the test to be called as an employer as per the provisions of the MW Act and there is a relationship of the employer and the employee as per the provisions of the MW Act. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is not an industry and not liable to pay the amount fails and the petitioner as an employer has to pay the minimum wages as required under the Act.
15. The other contention of the learned HCGP that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount under the Act as the petitioner has paid 27 contract labourers in accordance with Government Circular dated 14.03.2001, is unsustainable for the reason that the employees employed in the piece work as enumerated above the minimum rate
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 fixed as per the MW Act has to be paid as under Section 3 of the Act.
16. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jyothi Home Industries stated supra has held at paragraph No.33 as under:
"33. The provisions of S. 3 (2) of the Act, if they are scrutinized closely, bring out the powers of the Government to fix a minimum rate of wages for time-work and for piece-work and a minimum rate of remuneration to employees employed on piece-work for the purpose of securing to such employees a minimum rate of wages on a time- work basis. This remuneration under S. 3(2)(c) of the Act is called as guaranteed time-rate. It is also open to the Government under S. 17 of In the Act to bring about parity in the wages of employees employed on piece-work, for which a minimum rate is not fixed, with those employed in work, for which a minimum time-rate has been fixed under the Act. Hence, it is clear that the appropriate Government, under S.3 of the Act, can fix minimum wages for hours actually worked by the employee and if he is not in a position to fulfil this part of the contract on account of the fact that the employer does not offer him the necessary raw
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 material to work on his job, he would be entitled to remuneration under S. 3(2)(c) of the Act. The Government, knowing the plight of the bidi workers, has prescribed a sum of Rs. 4 per day as guaranteed remuneration in the event of the employer being not in a position to fulfil his part of the contract in offering a full day's work to the employee and that remuneration is called the "guaranteed wages" in the impugned notification. In my view, it is wrong to treat the terms "wages", "minimum wages" and "remuneration" as connoting different concepts under the Act. The word "wages" is the genus, and "time-rate,"
"piece-rate," "overtime wages," "minimum rate of wages" and "remuneration" are species. As observed by the Supreme Court, while considering the meaning of the word "remuneration" in the Catering Wages Act, 1943, in Central Bank of India v. Their workmen [1959-II L. L. J. 205], words must be given their meaning with reference to the context in which they occur in a statute. What the Supreme Court observed was:
"... We think that the decision itself shows that the word 'remuneration' must be given its meaning with reference to the context in which the word occurs in the statute. In the context of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, it meant the net payment
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 after certain deductions from wages paid by the employer; and in the Workmen's Compensation Act, it meant the amount of a man's earnings in an employment. We have pointed out that in the Banking Act with which we are concerned, the word 'remuneration' has been used in the widest sense. In that sense, it undoubtedly includes bonus."
In the context in which the word "wages" is defined and used in the Act, it also includes remuneration which is not for work done but amount paid by way of compensation for the period of involuntary unemployment of the workmen on account of the fact that the employer is not in a position to give the employee raw material for doing his day's job. Had he been employed on a time-rate basis, he would have been entitled to the full day's wages at the rate of Rs. 7.40 per day. In this case, most of the employees are employed on a piece-rate basis and, therefore, to bring up the level of their wages with those of employees employed on time-work basis, the Government provided that they should be paid a minimum amount of Rs. 4 per day as remuneration or guaranteed wages for the period of their involuntary unemployment on a given day. Though the term used is "guaranteed wages" it
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007 should be understood as guaranteed remuneration. It could also be understood in that way in the light of the provisions of S. 3(2) read with S 20 of the Act and why that guaranteed minimum remuneration is paid to these workmen is clear from the very object of the Act. If these employees are entitled to a minimum time-rate of Rs. 7.40 per day and if they are not provided with sufficient raw material to earn Rs. 7.40 per day on piece-rate basis, it is but fair that the Government should guarantee that these employees working on piece-rate basis should get a minimum amount of Rs. 4 per day either for rolling one bidi per day or for 700 or for rolling no bidies at all. Therefore, it is wrong to contend as maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notification interferes with the contractual right of the parties as observed by the Supreme Court in Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants' Association case [A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 486] (vide supra). The concept of wages under the Act is not contractual but statutory and the statutory element is provided for under the provisions of S. 3 of the Act and the employer would be bound by any notification under S. 3 of the Act fixing either a minimum remuneration. rate of wages or remuneration."
(emphasis applied)
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
17. In light of the Section 3 of the MW Act, it is rightly held by the authority that the power of the Government to fix a minimum rate of wages for piece work and minimum rate of remuneration to the employees under the Circular dated 14.03.2001 is not sustainable and the petitioner-State has to pay as per the minimum wages fixed under the Act. The other contention of the HCGP is that the delay of 52 days in preparing the claim statement was condoned without assigning any reasons. On perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the delay is on part of the Inspector of the MW Act, who had lodged a complaint on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages to the employed labourers of the petitioner establishment.
18. In the said circumstances, the said contention raised by the learned HCGP also fails. The Labour Commissioner on considering the entire material on record has rightly awarded the salary of the 27 labourers to the extent of Rs.2,23,153.80/-.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6597 WP No. 15721 of 2007
19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by respondent No.2 does not warrant any interference and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered against the petitioners-State and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is dismissed.
ii. The impugned order passed by the Labour Commissioner and the Competent Authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act stands confirmed.
iii. It is observed that the order of the Labour Commissioner is passed in the year 2007 and 27 labourers have been deprived of their legitimate right entitlement since 2007 and this Court deems it appropriate directing the petitioner to pay an interest of 6% from the date of passing of the order till realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE AT/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK