Karnataka High Court
Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company ... vs The Labour Officer And Authority Under on 21 August, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29664
WP No. 46186 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 46186 OF 2013 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
SREE GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSPORT
COMPANY LIMITED, SAGAR,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
P.SUBHASH NAYAK
S/O S.U.NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O SAGAR
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.V. JAYAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND AUTHORITY,
UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N SHIMOGA - 577 201.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI VISHWANATHA G. HEGDE
KARNATAKA
S/O G.R.HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2nd CROSS, GANESHNAGAR,
ANALEKOPPA EXTENSION,
SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.SRINIVAS KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. M.V.MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29664
WP No. 46186 of 2013
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.R.V.Jayaprakash., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Srinivas Kumar., learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 and Sri.M.V.Maheswarappa., learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
2. The order dated:30.07.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Shivamogga District, in case No.MWA/CR-40/2010 is called into question in this Writ Petition on the several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:29664 WP No. 46186 of 2013
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. ORIENTAL AROMA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER - (2010) 5 SCC 459.
2. MANIBEN DEVARAJ SHAH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHAN MUMBAI - (2012) 5 SCC 157.
3. JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER VS. D.NARASING RAO AND OTHERS -
(2015) 3 SCC 695.
5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner is a Motor Transport Company incorporated under the provisions Companies Act. It has been carrying on the business of running stage carriage buses since, 1944. The second respondent was appointed as a Conductor by the petitioner with effect from on 01.11.1985. During the Course of his employment, he committed various acts of commissions and omissions and ultimately he was dismissed from the service on 03.02.2010 after holding a domestic enquiry.
6. The second respondent filed an application in Form No.8 on 02.06.2010 under Section 20(2) of the Minimum -4- NC: 2023:KHC:29664 WP No. 46186 of 2013 Wages Act, 1948 claiming overtime wages of Rs.4,32,109/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred and Nine only) along with interest thereon contending that he had not been paid the overtime wages from the date of his appointment on 01.11.1985 till 31.03.2010. Along with the application, he also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petition.
7. Learned counsel Sri.R.V.Jayaprakash., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Labour Officer has overlooked the issue regarding delay and has erroneously condoned the delay. In reply, Sri.Maheswarappa., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent justified the order passed by the Labour Officer.
The application for condonation of delay filed by the second respondent is furnished in the Writ Petition and the same is at Annexure-C. The second respondent has stated that he has been discharging his duties from 01.11.1985 in the Motor Company and he has been requesting the Management to pay the over time charges and accordingly he has made -5- NC: 2023:KHC:29664 WP No. 46186 of 2013 several requests, but the same was turned out by the Management by issuing memos. It is also stated that he has been threatened by the Management. Hence, there is a delay in filing an application.
8. The claim application is furnished in the Writ Petition and the same is at Annexure-B. A perusal of the same would depict that the second respondent has claimed the arrears towards overtime work from 01.11.1985. The application is filed on 02.06.2010.
It is not in dispute that a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into on 25.06.1987. In terms of Clause 2 of the settlement, the Management agreed to increase the washing allowance for the running staff from Rs.2/- (Rupees Two only) to Rs.4/- (Rupees Four only) per month and also agreed to pay a special allowance at the rate of Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per month, whereas the running staff in turn would not claim any over time allowance. One more memorandum of settlement was entered into on 29.10.1990.
9. As things stood thus, another Memorandum of Settlement was entered into on 16.08.2004 (Annexure-H) and -6- NC: 2023:KHC:29664 WP No. 46186 of 2013 it is in this settlement, there was a Clause for payment of overtime wages. Hence, in my view, the second respondent is not justified in claiming overtime wages from 1985. That apart, as per the proviso to Section 20 (2) of Minimum Wages Act, provides that an application shall be presented within six months from the date of minimum wages (or other amount become payable). In the present case, the second respondent contended that, the Management is bound to pay the arrears for the overtime work from 1985.
10. As per the proviso to Section 20 (2) of Minimum Wages Act, the Claimant ought to have presented the application within six months from the date on which the minimum wages or other amounts become payable. But in the present case, there is an inordinate delay of twenty five years in filing the application. Hence, the Labour Officer has over- looked the issue regarding delay and laches and erroneously proceeded to pass the order, which in my opinion is unsustainable in law.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:29664 WP No. 46186 of 2013
11. For the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation in saying that the Labour Officer has erred in allowing the application. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside.
12. The Writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Shivamoga District, in case No.MWA/CR- 40/2010 vide Annexure-L is quashed.
13. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57