Karnataka High Court
Sri Selvam vs The Senior Labour Inspector on 27 March, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.51000 of 2012 &
14708-14765 of 2013 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
SRI SELVAM
S/O SHANMUGA SUNDARAM
CHAIRMAN
MANAGEMENT OF UDAYA TV
(SUN TV NETWORKS LTD.,)
NO 16-A, 2ND FLOOR
MARATA BHAVAN,
THIMMAIAH ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 052
NOW LOCATED AT:
MARAN TOWERS
NO. 9, BRUNTON ROAD,
M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001
NOW REP. BY ITS
SR MANAGER - (P & A) ... PETITIONER
[By Sri Ramachandra, Adv. for
Sri M R C Ravi, Adv.]
AND:
1. THE SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR
3RD CIRCLE, KARMIKA BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 029
2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT
OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT
2
SUB DIVISION 1
KARMIKA BHAVAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 029 ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, HCGP]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 27.1.2012 PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM
WAGES ACT AND LABOUR OFFICER, BANGALORE DIRECTING THE
MANAGEMENT TO PAY DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT FOR THE PERIOD
FROM 1.8.2006 TO 31.1.2007 FOR 59 EMPLOYEES TOTALING TO
RS.47,496/- AND FURTHER AWARDING TWICE THE
DIFFERENTIAL MINIMUM WAGES OF RS.94,922/- AND TOTALLING
TO RS.1,42,488/- WITHIN 30 DAYS VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In these writ petitions the employer has questioned the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Labour Officer and the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') in proceedings No. ¸ÀASÉåB PÁC¨ÉA-1/PÀªÉÃPÁ/¹Dgï-05/2007-08 at the instance of the Senior Labour Inspector, Government of Karnataka, III Circle, Karmika Bhavan, Bangalore, determining the amount of Rs.47,496/- to be the difference of wages payable to 59 employees, who have been employed in the writ petitioner 3 organization viz., M/s. Udaya T V Private Limited, (Sun TV Networks Ltd.,). The authority found this to be short payment in respect of 59 employees, being the difference amount between the wages actually paid to them and payable under the Act in respect of the workmen engaged or employed in 'Film Industry' for the period from 1.08.2006 to 31.01.2007. The authority has also imposed compensation at twice the differential minimum wages of Rs.47,496/- and in all totaling to Rs.1,42,488/- and the petitioner has been called upon to deposit the amount for disbursement in favour of the employees. It is questioning this order passed under Section 20 of the Act, the present writ petitions.
2. Mr. Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised several contentions. It is firstly urged that the establishment of the petitioner is not to be classified as a 'Film Industry', that it is only an establishment established under the Shops and 4 Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, and not for production of any films; that the petitioner had paid minimum wages in terms of the Karnataka Government Notification No.KAE 43 LMW 2001 dated 05.02.2003, which figures at Sl.No.58 of the Schedule, which is an establishment in the nature of Shops and Commercial Establishments and therefore, it is not liable to pay any difference of wages in respect of 59 employees as notified in respect of 'Film Industry'. It is also contended that the compensation determined is otherwise on the higher side; that the petitioner has not been given a proper opportunity, in a matter, which had been heard way back in the year 2007 and thereafter no intimation had been given to the petitioner and even without a further notice, the order is bad in law etc.
3. An advance copy of the petition had been served on the office of the Advocate General and learned HCGP appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5
4. Mr. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned HCGP points out that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity before the authority and he has urged the above contentions for the first before this court. No such stand having been taken before the authority it cannot be urged for the first time in writ jurisdiction.
5. A perusal of the impugned order does indicate in the first instance that the petitioner did not raise the above contentions before the authority and on the other hand, though the order is passed in the year 2007, it is questioned belatedly by filing writ petitions in the year 2012. It is also noticed that beneficiaries are not impleaded as respondents.
6. It is not necessary for this court to examine the merits of such contentions, which is raised before this court for the first time and as to whether the petitioner's establishment can be characterized as one coming within 6 the character of the 'Film Industry' is not a question, which can be determined for the first time sitting in writ jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to question the same before the authority, which could have examined on facts and circumstances, that cannot be examined in the present case and as per the impugned order, I do not propose to interfere in a matter of this nature on such grounds, particularly, when the employees are not before the court as party respondents.
7. Without going into the merits of the matter at this point of time, these writ petitions are dismissed, as it does not warrant any interference to entertain the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*