Sri K G Rangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K G Rangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2012

Bench: Subhash B Adi

                               1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

            DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

              WRIT PETITION NO.10287/2012(L-RES)

BETWEEN :
SRI K G RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/A NO.264, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, P.C LAYOUT
KOLAR.                                          ...PETITIONER

(By SRI. POORNACHANDRA PATTAR & AMOGH MASUR.R, ADVS.,)

AND :

1       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.
        DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
        ROOM NO.414, 4TH FLOOR,
        VIKASA SOUDHA
        DR.AMBEDKER VEEDHI
        BANGALORE - 560 001

2       LABOUR OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
        UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948
        KOLAR SUB DIVISION
        KOLAR

3       LABOUR INSPECTOR
        KOLAR, PETECHAMANAHALLI LAYOUT
        KOLAR-563 101
                                    2

4     DISTRICT SURGEON
      KOLAR, DISTRICT SNR HOSPITAL
      KOLAR.                                         ...RESPONDENTS

( By SMT.MANJULA KAMMADOLLI, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER.

     THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Petitioner has called in question the order of the authority under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act 1948 dated 28.11.2011.

2. The Labour Inspector got the information that the petitioner has engaged 25 workman in the fourth respondent - District Hospital, Kolar. When the Inspector made inspection, he found that, 25 contract labourers were supplied by the petitioner and they were not paid the minimum wages. On the basis of the said report, show cause notice was issued by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act and based on the reply given and the evidence produced by both the parties, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act by the impugned order held that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1,49,415/- as the minimum wages 3 and equal amount of penalty, in all Rs.2,98,830/-. This order has been called in question by the petitioner.

3. It is not in dispute that this petitioner has supplied 25 contract labourers to the fourth respondent - hospital. However, contention of the petitioner is that, under the notification dated 16.8.2002 issued by the State Government, Rs.1,800/- was fixed as the wages per month for unskilled contract workmen, as such, the Contractor has been paying Rs.1,800/-, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are not applicable.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are applicable to all such employees, but when there is no minimum wages fixed, the amount as prescribed under the notification will be paid.

5. It is not in dispute that the minimum wages is fixed and is applicable even to the contract labourers. The Labour Inspector, who 4 made the inspection, has found that, 25 workmen engaged by the petitioner were not paid the minimum wages, accordingly, he has determined the difference of amount along with penalty and has issued direction to the petitioner to pay the same.

6. Considering these circumstances, I do not find there is any error in the order passed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act.

Hence, the petition fails and same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE KNM/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court