Karnataka High Court
The Taluk Social Welfare vs G.M Suresh on 19 October, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.35502/2015 (L - MW)
BETWEEN
THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE
OFFICER, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR - 563 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.N.ASWATHANARAYAN, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCING))
AND
1. G.M.SURESH
S/O MUNIVENKATARAMANAPPA,
MAJOR,
GULTUR VILLAGE, HUTTUR POST,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
2. SMT. KRISHNAMMA
C/O SRINIVAS, MAJOR,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR STUDENTS HOSTEL,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
3. SRI M.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LT. MUNIYAPPA,
MAJOR,
KOTE, KOLAR TOWN - 563 101.
2
4. P.KANTHARAJU
S/O LT. PILLAPPA, MAJOR,
RAJAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 102.
5. V.SHIVANNA
S/O VENKATASWAMY, MAJOR,
CHANNAPPAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 102.
6. SMT.PARVATHAMA
C/O LAKSHMANAGOWDA, MAJOR,
GOVT. GIRLS STUDENTS HOSTEL,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
7. K.V.SRINIVAS
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
MAJOR,
RAAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 102.
8. N.NAGARAJA
C/O CHIKKANARAYANAPPA, MAJOR,
GOVT. BOYS STUDENTS HOSTEL,
MADERI,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
9. NARAYANASWAMY G.M.,
S/O DODDAVENKATAPPA, MAJOR,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
GANGAMMANAPALYA,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
3
10. KRISHNAVENI
MAJOR,
GOVT. P.U. COLLEGE HOSTEL,
VEMGAL, KOLAR TALUK &
DIST. - 563 102.
11. VENKATARAMANAPPA
MAJOR,
NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE
ANTHARGANGE MAIN ROAD
KOLAR TALUK & DIST - 563101
12. SMT.VENKATAMMA
C/O MUNIYAMMA,
MAJOR,
MUDUGULI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DIST - 563 114.
13. SMT.LAKSHMAMA
W/O LT. VENKATESHAPPA,
MAJOR,
POOJARAPPA COMPOUND,
BEHIND SANTHI BHAVAN,
KILU KOTE, KOLAR TOWN - 563 114.
14. SMT. JAYAMMA
C/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
MAJOR,
NO.216, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
14TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
KOLAR TOWN - 563 101.
15. SMT.NANJAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
MAJOR,
4
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
VIBUTHIPURA, KILUKOTE,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
16. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O CHOWDAPPA,
MAJOR,
SANTHI NAGAR, 6TH CROSS,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
KOLAR TALUK & DIST. - 563 101.
17. MEENAKSHAMMA
C/O PRAMOD CHIKKAMANNUR,
MAJOR,
CONVENER, DIST. DAILLY
WAFES EMPLOYEES DIVISION,
NO : 84/1, SUKANYABAI NILAYA,
6TH CROSS, T.K.LAYOUT,
MYSURU - 570 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4, R5, R9
AND R12 (VIDEO CONFERENCING);
SMT. K.R.VANITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 (ABSENT);
R2, R8, R10, R11, R13, R15, R16, R17 SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016.
R7 AND R14 HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUSH THE ORDER DTD 21.11.2005 (ANNEXURE-B)
PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT
AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER THE MINIM UM WAGES
ACT 1948 IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO.15/2002-03, KOLAR
DISTRICT, KOLAR ETC.
5
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Kolar Taluk has preferred the subject writ petition calling in question the order dated 21.11.2005, of the Labour Officer and the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short) in Claim Application No.15/2003-03, Kolar District, Kolar.
2. Heard Sri S.N.Aswathanarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Govindaraj and learned counsel for first, fourth, fifth, ninth and twelfth respondents and perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition is, the respondents herein who are the employees of the petitioner - Department of 6 Social Welfare filed a claim petition before the Competent Authority under Section 20 (2) of the said Act, praying for payment of difference of minimum wage inter alia.
4. The Competent Authority by his order dated 21.11.2005, held that the respondents were entitled to the claim that was made for payment of minimum wages. Identical orders were passed by the Competent Authority under the said Act, which were challenged before this Court in writ petition Nos.37448
- 462/2013. This Court by its order dated disposed of with certain directions.
5. Considering all the aspects, the Competent Authority has allowed the claim of the respondents. When the claimants filed application for recovery of the said amount before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, the petitioner herein appeared and sought 7 time to implement the order. The trial Court has recorded the submission of the petitioner which reads as follows:
27-8-2011 Petitioner by ACTO Respondent Respondent by PNK prays & FLW to -------- submits that & unserved he will settle the case within 2 months & hence prays for time is granted call on 15.10 Sd/-27/8
(emphasis supplied)
6. Having undertook to implement the order before the trial Court wayback on 15.10.2011, have preferred the present writ petitions after a delay of about 10 years as the order challenged in all these petitions are of the year 2005.
7. This Court in an identical challenge dismissed the W.P.No.8459/2008 by its order dated 28.01.2009, 8 filed by the very petitioner on the ground that the Taluk Social Welfare Officer has undertaken to implement the order. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"5. Without going into the correctness of the order, since the petitioners have agreed before the learned Sessions Judge that they would pay the amount as ordered and made the learned Sessions Judge to postpone the proceedings on the said submission, now the Government cannot deny the same. In the light of the same, if the Government has already agreed to pay the said amount, in my view, the Government must comply with its promise. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with order impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed."
(emphasis supplied) This was carried in W.A.Nos.2560 and 3315- 37/2009, before the learned Division Bench. The learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal by its 9 judgment dated 26.10.2009. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:
"3. The order passed by the learned single Judge reveals that since the appellants herein did not comply with the direction given in the order dated 10-6- 2003, respondents approached the Sessions Judge seeking prosecution. Before the Sessions Judge the appellants herein have agreed to comply with the order. Having so agreed, they have taken a U-turn and filed writ petition after a lapse of 5 years from the date of order. That apart, Annexure-R-2 is the letter dated 16-8-2006 produced along with the objections statement. It is written by the District Social Welfare Officer to the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department seeking release of the amount to comply with the order of the Minimum Wages Authority. Despite all these, the present with appeal is filed by the appellant. This attitude of the appellant cannot be appreciated. Since the appellant has agreed to pay the amounts to the respondent-employees, he cannot challenge the correctness of the order of the Minimum Wages Authority and order of the learned single Judge.
4. The liability to pay minimum wages as determined by the Authority has filed to implement his order though the 10 payment of Minimum Wages to the employees is the statutory obligation under the provisions of the Act, which Act is pre- constitutional law, passed the test of Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, the Act mandates to pay minimum wages to the workmen/employees for their living such being the legal position, appellant challenging the orders of the Authority. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the appellant and the State Government to implement the orders impugned in this appeal. The minimum wage fixed cannot be construed as 'living wage' or 'fair wage'. It is most unfortunate that the benefit of the order passed in the year 2003 is not implemented by the appellant, being the officer of the Social Welfare Department. If the State Government and its Department is not implementing the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, then how can it enforce the provisions of the Act against the private employer. Instead of paying the amounts determined, hyper-technical plea is taken to overcome it. The same is highly deprecated.
5. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed."
(emphasis supplied) 11
8. In terms of the order of the learned Co- ordinate Bench and the judgment of the learned Division Bench, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ