Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes vs Sri Mayanna Gowda M on 21 April, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.1629 OF 2020 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 009
2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(ENF)
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 047
3. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES(VIG)
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 047
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI RAMESH GOWDA A., AGA)
AND:
1. SRI MAYANNA GOWDA M.
S/O LATE MARIMAYANNAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
SOUTH ZONE, BANGALORE
AND R/A HOUSE NO.32
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003
2. SRI D.KRISHNA
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
2
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE-560 047.
3. SRI N.SHANKAR
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
SOUTH ZONE, BANGALORE-560047
R/A HOUSE NO.195
3RD CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI
MAHALAXMIPURAM
BANGALORE-560 086
4. SRI G.SHIVASWAMY
S/O LATE GAVIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.38,
8TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS
BAIRAVESHWARANAGAR
NAGARABHAVI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 076
5. SRI G.PRAKASH
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANAGALA, BENGALURU-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.10/5
2ND CROSS, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085
6. SRI R.BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 047
3
AND R/A HOUSE NO.2578
7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560040
7. SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
SOUTH ZONE, BANGALORE-560 047
R/A HOUSE NO.921
2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK
HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA MAIN ROAD
NAGASANDRA POST
BANGALORE-560 073
8. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE GANGOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560047
R/A HOUSE NO.144, 2ND CROSS
KALYANPURA, DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 058
9. SRI M.RAMESH
S/O MUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.71/1
4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD
TYAGARAJANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 028
10. SRI RAMANAIAH S.
S/O JANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(VIGILANCE)
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 047
4
AND R/A HOUSE NO.219
3RD CROSS, BAGALUR MAIN ROAD
VIVEKNAGAR, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 072
11. SRI ANKAIAH
S/O LATE LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.30
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS
BANGALORE-560 040
12. SRI T.B.NAGARAJU
S/O BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(VIGILANCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.278
SRI LAXMINARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA
KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAXMIPURAM
BANGALORE-86
13. SRI B.T.MARANNA
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(VIGILANCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.10
BABASAHEBARAPALYA
KENGERI POST, BANGALORE-560 060
14. SRI S.N.NARASEGOWDA
S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
SOUTH ZONE, BANGALORE-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.4/1
KUMARAVYASA ROAD
5
3RD MAIN ROAD, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 050
15. SRI B.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047
AND R/A HOUSE NO.8
14TH CROSS, PIPELINE
CHOLURPALYA, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 040
16. SRI N.ESHWARAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR.,
SMT.PADMA
W/O LATE N.ESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.265, 7TH CROSS
SRIGANDHA BAKERY
SRIGANDHA NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 009
17. SRI B.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SRI BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 047
18. SRI.RANGARAJU
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
SIRA ROAD, TUMKUR
R/A JAIN TEMPLE BACK SIDE
2ND MAIN ROAD, SIRA ROAD
TUMKUR
19. SRI.KUMBAIAH
S/O PUTTASHYAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6
WORKING AS HAMALI
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(INTELLIGENCE)
SIRA ROAD, TUMKUR
R/A PUTTASWAMIANHAPALYA
NEAR SIRA GATE POST
TUMKUR
20. SRI ZAHEER AHMED
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR
SRI NAYAZ AHAMED
S/O LATE ZAHEER AHAMED
RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS
BARLINE, TUMAKURU-572 010
21. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND AUTHORITY UNDER
SECTION 20(1) OF
MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948
BENGALURU REGION-1
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU-560029
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND AUTHORITY U/S 20(1) OF
MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948, BENGALURU ZONE-1, BENGALURU,
UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND
ETC.
THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON
18.12.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition by the State is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Authority (for short "the DLCA") 7 under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act of 1948"), whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents-applicants was allowed by the DLCA, thereby directing the petitioners herein to pay minimum wages as directed in the impugned order and issuing other directions to the petitioners.
2. The various contentions urged by the petitioners are as under:-
2.1 The respondents were working as Hamalis -
Coolie work on a need and purely temporary basis in the check posts of the Commercial Taxes Department. The coolie work is not regulated work nor on the rule book and the coolies/Hamalis are neither covered under regular recruitment rules nor made against any sanctioned posts and the respondents-Hamalis do not come under the purview of any services under the KCSRs nor under any service rules of permanent employees of the State Government including Group-D posts or daily wage employees.
2.2 It is contended that the respondents and others were appointed as Hamalis/coolies in mobile and static 8 check-posts in the Commercial Taxes Department purely on temporary basis at fixed rate of wage as fixed by the Government and paid as per Rules 7 and 55(2)(b) of the Manual of Contingency and Expenditure, 1958(for short "the MCE"). The respondents and others have accepted the conditions imposed in the appointment orders and their services were required and extracted for the specific purpose of unloading and loading goods vehicles.
2.3 It is contended that the respondents and others approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.4462/2007 and connected matters seeking regularisation of their services as well as payment of wages according to pay scales attached to Group-D posts and for other reliefs. The said applications having been dismissed by the KAT vide order dated 24.02.2012, the Hamalies preferred W.P.Nos.7222-7241/2012 before this Court. The said petitions were also dismissed by this Court vide final order dated 25.09.2013. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents and other Hamalies to approach the authorities under the said Act of 1948 for payment of minimum wages and the said claim would be considered by 9 the DLCA bearing in mind and taking into consideration earlier orders passed by the DLCA and this Court in relation to Hamalies.
2.4 Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondents herein filed an application before the DLCA seeking minimum wages and other reliefs.
2.5 The said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the DLCA proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents, aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Heard Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners and Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Additional Advocate General made the following submissions:-
10
4.1 The respondents-Hamalies were appointed on a need and purely temporary basis and not against any sanctioned/regular post and they cannot be considered on par with daily wage employees.
4.2 The respondents-Hamalies are not governed by either the said Act of 1948 nor the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short "the said Act of 1961") and neither enactment is applicable to the respondents.
4.3 The post of Hamalies is not prescribed in the C & R Rules of the Department and that they have been appointed on task specific basis and consequently, they were not entitled to minimum wages under the said Act of 1948.
4.4 The respondents-Hamalies are not working under any scheduled employment under the said Act of 1948 nor has the schedule to the Act been amended under Section 27 of the said Act of 1948 by including Hamalies and as such, the said Act of 1948 was not applicable to them on this ground also.
4.5 The procedure under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the said Act of 1948 has not been followed by the State 11 Government, in that, in the absence of any notification issued under Section 5(1)(b) or the procedure prescribed under Section 5(1)(a) being followed and without any notification under Section 5(2) of the said Act of 1948 being published, it was not permissible for the respondents-
Hamalies to claim minimum wages under the said Act of 1948.
4.6 As per Rule 27(4) of the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 (for short "the said Rules of 1958"), it is necessary that Hamalies should work for a period of eight hours failing which they would not be entitled to minimum wages and since the respondents did not comply with the said requirement, they would not be entitled to claim minimum wages.
4.7 Apart from the fact that there is delay and latches on the part of the respondents in putting forth their claim under the said Act of 1948, the explanation offered by the respondents for the said delay is neither valid nor tenable and accordingly, the DLCA committed an error in condoning the delay of 2½ years to 19 years in putting forth 12 the claim by the respondents, which is contrary to Section 20(2) of the said Act of 1948.
4.8 The impugned order passed by the DLCA suffers from various illegalities and infirmities and the same is contrary to the material on record.
4.9 The various contentions urged by the petitioners have neither been considered nor appreciated by the DLCA before passing the impugned order, which is based on irrelevant documents, which cannot be looked into for the purpose of upholding the claim of the respondents- Hamalies.
4.10 It is therefore contended that the impugned order passed by the DLCA deserves to be set aside and the claim of the respondents-Hamalies was liable to be rejected.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents-Hamalies submit that the impugned order passed by the DLCA is a perfectly legal, valid and a proper order, which warrants any interference by this Court in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13 Elaborating his submissions, learned Senior counsel submits that the DLCA correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record and upheld the claim of the respondents-Hamalies by passing the impugned order, which is just and proper and consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel has filed written synopsis and several documents which will be referred to later in this order. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:
I. Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka - (1990) 2 SCC 396.
II. People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India - (1982) 3 SCC 235.
III. Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation - (2010) 3 SCC 192.
IV. Workmen Vs. Reptokos Brett And Co. Ltd., - (1992) 1 SCC 290.
V. Chandrabhavan Boarding and Lodging Vs. State of Mysore - (1969) 3 SCC 84.
VI. Airfreight Vs. State of Karnataka - (1999) 6 SCC
567. 14 VII. Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirak Gosh - (2002) 4 SCC
21. VIII. Purnendu Mukhopadhyay Vs. V.K. Kapoor -
(2008) 14 SCC 403.
IX. KCP Employees Association Vs. KCP Limited - (1978) 2 SCC 42.
X. Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs. Workmen - (1960) 2 SCR 982.
XI. R.S. Naik Vs. A.R. Anthulay - (1984) 2 SCC 183. XII. Patel Eshwarbhai Prahaladbhai Vs. Taluka Development Officer - (1983) 1 SCC 403.
XIII. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of Gujarath -
(2020) 10 SCC 459.
XIV. National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi -
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
XV. Mohiuddin Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand - (2012) SCC OnLine Jhar 2082.
XVI. U.Unichoyi Vs. State of Kerala - (1962) 1 SCR
946. XVII. Union of India Vs. Manu Dev Arya - (2004) 5 SCC
232. XVIII. State of Madhyapradesh Vs. Mala Banerjee -
(2015) 7 SCC 698.
XIX. State of Uttarpradesh Vs. Johari Mal - (2004) 4 SCC 714.
XX. Balco Employees Union Vs. Union of India -
(2002) 2 SCC 333.
XXI. Mangalam Organics Limited Vs. Union of India -
(2017) 7 SCC 221.
15XXII. Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association Vs. State of Telangana - (2019) 7 SCC 172. XXIII. Parisons Agrotech Vs. Union of India - (2015) 9 SCC 657.
XXIV. Moons Technologies Ltd., Vs. Union of India -
(2019) 18 SCC 401.
XXV. Municipal Council, Neemuch Vs. Mahadeo Real Estate - (2019) 10 SCC 738.
XXVI. Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India - (2003) 4 SCC 289.
XXVII. Uger Sugar Works Vs. Delhi Administration -
(2001) 3 SCC 635.
XXVIII. Bajaj Hindustan Limited Vs. Sir. Shadilal Enterprises - (2011) 1 SCC 640.
XXIX. Tamilnadu Education Department MAGS Association Vs. State of Tamilnadu - (1980) 3 SCC 97.
XXX. Sachidanand Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal -
(1987) 2 SCC 295.
XXXI. Center for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India - (2016) 6 SCC 408.
XXXII. Census Commissioner Vs. R. Krishnamurthy -
(2015) 2 SCC 796.
XXXIII. Edward Mills Company Limited Vs. State of Ajmer - (1955) 1 SCR 735.
XXXIV. Sunil Kumar Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh -
(2016) 1 SCC 397.
XXXV. Bussa Overseas Vs. Union of India - (2016) 4 SCC 696.
16XXXVI. Fida Hussain Vs. Moradabad Development Authority - (2011) 12 SCC 615.
XXXVII. State of Uttarpradesh Vs. Ajaykumar Sharma -
(2016) 15 SCC 289.
XXXVIII. Anupal Singh Vs. State of Uttarpradesh - (2020) 2 SCC 173.
6. After having given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions, in my considered opinion, the impugned order passed by the DLCA allowing the claim of the respondents-Hamalies is just, proper and legal and does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition for the following reasons:-
(i) A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the DLCA has considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the rival contentions for the purpose of passing the impugned order. While doing so, the DLCA has answered additional point framed by it with regard to the delay in filing the claim petition, by coming to the conclusion that the material on record indicates that the respondents-Hamalies were agitating their claim for minimum wages from the year 1995 to 2007. The DLCA also noticed that the claim for regularisation and minimum 17 wages put forth by the respondents-Hamalies were pending before the KAT from the year 2007 till the same was rejected in 2012, pursuant to which, they preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.7222/2012 and connected matters before this Court. By final order dated 25.09.2013, this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions; however, liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents-Hamalies to file a claim petition before the authorities; it is an undisputed fact that pursuant thereto, the respondents filed the instant claim petition before the DLCA, which allowed the same by passing the impugned order.
(ii) The aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances will indicate that the respondents-Hamalies having agitated their claim for minimum wages from 1995 till 2013, when the same was rejected by this Court in W.P.No.7222/2012 and connected matters vide order dated 25.09.2013 reserving liberty in their favour to approach the DLCA, the claim petition filed within a period of six months from 25.09.2013, cannot be treated or construed as barred by limitation or latches/delay and consequently, the DLCA was fully justified in answering additional points in relation 18 to delay in filing the claim petition in favour of the respondents-Hamalies.
(iii) A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the DLCA has taken into account the provisos to Section 20(2) of the said Act of 1948 in order to come to the conclusion that if sufficient cause is shown by the respondents-Hamalies for not filing the claim petition within a period of six months from the date when the cause of action accrued, the delay in filing the claim petition can be condoned. In this context, the DLCA has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged pleadings and evidence of the respondents with regard to the delay, if any, in filing the claim petition and has arrived at the proper conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the inability and omission on the part of the respondents-Hamalies in filing the claim petition within the prescribed period of six months was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause as stated supra and consequently, the said delay, if any, in filing the claim petition deserves to be 19 condoned and on this score also, the finding recorded by the DLCA that the delay in filing the claim petition deserves to be condoned does not warrant interference by this Court.
(iv) The material on record also discloses that the respondents are undisputedly Hamalies who had forth the claim for minimum wages for the purpose of their life and livelihood; having regard to the fact that the said Act of 1948 is a beneficial piece of legislation, the DLCA was fully justified in adopting a justice oriented approach and not a hyper technical approach while considering their claim for minimum wages and as such, viewed from this angle also, the impugned order passed by the DLCA answering additional point in favour of the respondents - Hamalies and condoning the delay, if any, in filing the claim petition cannot be said to be perverse or illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(v) While dealing with Point No.1 formulated by it as regards, whether the respondents - Hamalies were employees within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the said 20 Act of 1948, the DLCA has considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the pleadings and evidence of the parties and has recorded a finding that the respondents - Hamalies were employees within the meaning of the said provision. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the DLCA has taken into account the unimpeached and uncontroverted documents produced by the respondents - Hamalies as well as the documents which indicate that the petitioners themselves have admitted that the respondents - Hamalies were employees for the purpose of arriving at the said conclusion. The DLCA has also noticed that the petitioners herein neither rebutted the evidence adduced by the respondents - Hamalies nor adduced any independent evidence on their behalf to establish that the respondents - Hamalies were not employees as contended by them. Thus, carefully examining and scrutinising the material on record as well as the rival contentions, the DLCA has recorded a categorical finding of fact based on admissible and relevant evidence that the respondents - Hamalies were employees within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the said Act of 1948. 21 Upon perusal of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the said finding of fact recorded by the DLCA while answering Point No.1 and coming to the conclusion that the respondents - Hamalies were employees within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the said Act of 1948 cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity and the same does not warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) So also, while dealing with Point No.2 as to, whether the respondents - Hamalies were entitled to the minimum wages, the DLCA has taken into account the conduct of the State including the correspondence, circulars, orders, notifications etc., from 1987 onwards which clearly indicates that similarly placed Hamalies have been granted minimum wages by the State Government. In this context, the DLCA has referred to the unimpeached documentary evidence adduced by the respondents - Hamalies including admissions made by the State that similarly situated Hamalies have been granted minimum wages; the recommendation of the Labour Department 22 and Finance Department to grant minimum wages to the respondents - Hamalies also indicates that they are entitled to minimum wages. All relevant documents in this regard have been correctly and properly discussed by the DLCA in order to point out that having represented and held out to all Hamalies including the respondents that they would be treated on par with the other Hamalies for the purpose of payment of minimum wages. Under these circumstances, the continuous conduct of the State Government in treating the respondents - Hamalies on par with similarly situated Hamalies for the purpose of minimum wages is sufficient to establish that the defence of the State Government that they are not liable to pay minimum wages to the present respondents is clearly barred by the principles of acquiescence and estoppel.
(vii) The undisputed material on record also establishes that similarly situated Hamalies had approached the authorities seeking payment of minimum wages; the said claim having been upheld by the authorities vide order dated 03.05.2008, the State preferred W.P.No.8091/2008 which was dismissed by this Court vide 23 order dated 09.11.2011 interalia coming to the conclusion that the Hamalies were entitled to the minimum wages; the appeal in W.A.No.30055/2012 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 31.01.2012; further, the petition in SLP(C) No.18950/2012 was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 21.09.2012, thereby confirming the order of the authorities and this Court granting minimum wages to Hamalies. Under these circumstances, the said order granting minimum wages in favour of similarly situated Hamalies having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the State, the DLCA was fully justified in allowing the claim of the respondents - Hamalies by invoking the doctrine of parity and consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.
(viii) It is a well settled principle of law as held by the Apex Court in several decisions that there cannot be inequality or discrimination while granting relief to similarly situated persons when relief is granted to others. It has been held that in cases of similarly / identically situated persons, it is necessary to grant appropriate inductive relief 24 in favour of persons who are not parties to the earlier judgments, since refusing relief would lead to artificial classification and discriminatory application of law thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from this angle also, justice and equity demands that the respondents - Hamalies who are identically and similarly situated to the Hamalies, who were granted minimum wages by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments are also granted minimum wages and as such, the DLCA was fully and perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the said documents and circumstances in order to uphold the claim of the respondents - Hamalies.
(ix) It is also trite law that judicial interference in policy decisions of the State is limited and while exercising jurisdiction in matters arising out of policy decisions is limited and restricted; in this context, as stated supra, the continuous and long conduct of the State Government including the notifications, orders, circulars, correspondence etc., are clearly a pointer to the policy decision taken by the State Government to grant minimum 25 wages to the respondents - Hamalies; this policy decision taken by the State Government as borne out from the material on record is also taken into account and considered by the DLCA while passing the impugned order and consequently, the present petition by the State challenging the impugned order which has recognised, confirmed and affirmed the said policy decision also does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
(x) The material on record also discloses that the respondents - Hamalies have been performing their duties as Hamalies, which involves physical labour at the check posts; the aforesaid documents comprising of notifications, orders, circulars, correspondence etc., not only establish the said fact but also indicates that even according to the State Government, it would be just, fair, proper and equitable to pay minimum wages to the respondents - Hamalies also having regard to the nature of work / employment carried out by them. It is well settled that the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable and discretionary. 26
(xi) There is no gainsaying the fact that having regard to the continuous conduct of the State Government which admits and accepts the fact that the respondents - Hamalies are entitled to minimum wages irrespective of the fact, whether they are entitled to regularisation or not, is sufficient to establish that the DLCA was fully justified in upholding the claim of the respondents - Hamalies for minimum wages and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, in particular, the nature of work carried on by the respondents - Hamalies and the said Act of 1948 being a beneficial piece of legislation, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(xii) In so far as the contention of the petitioners that the respondents-Hamalies are temporary employees, to whom neither the said Act of 1948 nor the said Act of 1961 are applicable and since the C & R Rules do not provide for minimum wages, they are not entitled to the same is concerned, it is relevant to state that the impugned order 27 discloses that the claim of the respondents-Hamalies for minimum wages has not been upheld by the DLCA nor has the claim of the petitioners herein not been accepted by this Court on the ground that the respondents - Hamalies are entitled to regularisation or that they were appointed to a sanctioned/regular post; on the other hand, the claim of the petitioners-State has been negatived for various reasons stated hereinbefore and consequently, merely because the respondents-Hamalies were not appointed in respect of a sanctioned post or that their services have been regularised, cannot be made the basis by the petitioners to contend that the respondents-Hamalies are entitled to minimum wages which they are otherwise entitled to in law, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and accordingly, this contention urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
(xiii) Insofar as the contention of the State Government that the claim for minimum wages put forth by the respondents - Hamalies was rejected by the KAT and confirmed by this Court as stated supra, in view of the specific / express liberty reserved by this Court in 28 W.P.No.7222/2012 & connected matters, the said contention cannot be accepted.
(xiv) Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioners that in the absence of the procedure under Section 27 and Sections 3 and 5 of the said Act of 1948 being followed, the respondents were not entitled to minimum wages is concerned, in view of the discussion above that the conduct of the State Government operates as estoppel and their policy binds them coupled with the fact that this is not a fit case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, awarding of minimum wages in favour of the respondents - Hamalies was fully justified, fair and proper and as such, the said contention urged by the State cannot be accepted.
(xv) In so far as reliance placed on Rule 27 of the Rules to contend that the respondents-Hamalies were not working for the prescribed period of Eight years and that their claim for minimum wages was liable to be rejected in view of Rule 27 is concerned, apart from the fact that the 29 said contention is contrary to the material on record, the DLCA has recorded a finding of fact that the respondents- Hamalies were working continuously for the prescribed period per day for more than three decades; in view of the other material on record, which clearly establishes that even according to the petitioners-State, the respondents- Hamalies and similarly situated Hamalies are entitled to minimum wages, even this contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Bmc/Srl.