Karnataka High Court
Taluk Social Welfare Officer vs The Convener on 1 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.21952 OF 2010(L-MW)
BETWEEN:
1. TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.
2. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
MANDYA - 571 401. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CONVENER
KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT,
DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES FEDERATION,
DISTRICT UNIT: MANDYA.
C/O SHIVARAM
STD BOOTH,
A.C.OFFICE ROAD,
PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.
2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES
ACT, 1948.
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION-I,
MANDYA - 571 401. ... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, HCGP FOR R2
R1-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER
PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND AUTHORITY
UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948, MANDYA SUB-
DIVISION-I, MANDYA ON 15.4.2010, IN CASE
L0M-I/MWA/CR-41/2001 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME,
BY ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRAITE WRIT. QUASH AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.4.2010, PASSED BY THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM
WAGES ACT 1948, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ii)
GRANT SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEFS.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The first respondent on behalf of the workman- Sri.Ramalinga, who is said to be working as a Cook on the basis of daily-wages, raised a claim petition under Section- 20(2) of Minimum Wage Act, 1948, before the Authority.
2. The plea was that the respondents therein have not paid the difference of basic wages, cost of living allowance, general, national and festival holidays worked, 3 etc. Therefore, a claim was set-up for a sum of Rs.1,33,298/-. An application was also filed to condone the delay of almost twelve years.
3. On service of notice, the respondents put-in appearance and denied the claim. They firstly contended that the delay of twelve years cannot be condoned. Hence, the claim petition should be rejected on that ground itself. They further contended that the wages that were fixed and notified by the Government from time to time were being paid to the petitioner. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. By the impugned order, the Labour Court allowed the claim petition. The petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,674/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Four Only), within 60 days from the said order. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4
5. Sri.B.J. Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Labour Court committed an error in allowing the claim petition. The Authority on the question of delay was of the view that representations were made to the respondents therein for negotiations, but there were no response to the same. Therefore, on the ground that the delay was not intentional and that it was bonafide and that no prejudice or injustice would be caused to the other side, condoned the delay of 12 years.
6. The counsel for respondent No.1 is absent. The learned Government Advocate appears for respondent No.2.
7. Heard learned counsels and examined the records.
8. On considering the reasons assigned, by the learned counsel I do not find it appropriate to accept the same. The delay of twelve years has to be properly explained. Merely stating that representations were being 5 given, which were not considered, cannot be the reason to condone the inordinate delay of twelve years. I have considered the Affidavit of respondent No.1 herein, vide Annexure-B, wherein it is stated that the employer has neither reacted nor called for any negotiations. Therefore, it is essential to condone the delay. Such a reason does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay of 12 years. Hence, on that ground alone, the claim of petitioner requires to be rejected.
9. Even on considering the plea of the respondents, the Authority took note of the fact that the Government vide Notification dated 05.06.1984, has fixed the minimum wages for workers engaged in construction and maintenance of Roads and Building activities. Apparently, the workman being a Cook, would not stand covered by the aforesaid Government Notification. In fact, Cooks were covered subsequently by the Government Notification dated 22.12.2001. However, the claim of the workman is for the period under the Notification dated 6 22.12.2001 i.e., prior to 01.12.2001. Hence, on this ground also the Labour Court committed an error in granting the same.
10. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.04.2010, in Case No.LOM- I/MWA/CR-41/2001, passed by the Labour Officer and Authority, Mandya Sub-Division-I, Mandya, is set-aside.
Rule made absolute.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ