Karnataka High Court
Siddappa S/O. Yallappa Halagi vs The Senior Labour Inspector, on 16 February, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012
:BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
W.P.No.60256 of 20 12(L)
Between:
Siddappa S/o Yallappa Halagi,
Age 45 years,
0cc: Business,
R/o Sagar complex
Ganapathi Galli,
Santhosh Nirmala
Talkies compound
Belgaum, Dist: Belgaum.
2. Sundar Shanthappa Pujari,
Age 36 years,
0cc: Owner of M/s Shabhari
Tea bar Sagar Complex
Ganapathi Galli,
Santhosh Nirmala
Talkies Compound Belgaum
R/o Ward No.30
A.K Deshpande Belgaum,
District Belgaum.
Petitioners
(By Sri. H.M.Dharigond, Advocate)
And:
The Senior Labour Inspector,
1St Circle Belgaum,
2
Dist: Belgaum.
2. Krishna, S/o. Rajappa Nayak,
Age: 17 years,
0cc: Cleaner in Shabhari
Tea bar Sagar Complex
Ganapathi Galli,
Santhosh Nirmala
Talkies compound,
Belgaum.
3. Shekar Shanthappa Pujari,
Age: 36 years,
0cc: Business,
R/o ward No.30
A.K Deshpande,
Belgaum,
Dist: Belgaum.
4. Pramod Shanthappa Pujari,
Age: 36 years,
0cc: Business,
R/o Ward No.30,
A.K Deshpande
Belgaum,
Dist: Belgaum.
5. Labour Officer & Authority
Under Minimum Wages Act 1948,
Sub-Division-I
Belgaum.
Respondents
(By Sri. P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP for Ri and R5)
This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash
the
impugned order dated 28/12/2010 passed by
the
Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority
respondent No.5 vide Annexure-E.
3
This W.P coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following
: ORDER:
The petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority5th resp ondent vide Annexure-E, so far as it relates to the obs ervation made by the 5th respondent that 2nd respondent is a child labour at the time of inspection, have presented this petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are:
The first respondent herein has filed an applicati on before the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority as provided under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on the ground that, petitioners have not paid minimum wages to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as per Government Circular dated 17.7.2003 and also that second respondent is a child labour at the time of inspection i.e. on 12.1.2010.
Further, first respondent has also initiated a criminal case in CC No.140,141 and 142 against the petit ioners under 4- 4 Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act and Child Labour Act and those cases are pen ding consideration before the Trial court. It is the further cas e of the petitioners that, in pursuance to the notice, petitio ners have filed their reply to the petition along with docum ents i.e. birth certificate, medical certificate and ration card which shows that the second respondent is not a chil d labour at the time of inspection and respondent Nos.
3 and 4 are not employees and they are the brothers of the second petitioner. Further it is the case of the petitioners tha 5th t, respondent- Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Aut hority, without considering the documents produced by them, without providing opportunity to the petitioners and without application of mind has passed an order and directing the petitioners to deposit difference amount of 85, 382/ before the authority,
-
within 30 days from the date of the said order. In pursuance of the order passed by the 5th res pondent-Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority, the first respondent has filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No.65 /2011 as provided under section 20(5) (B) of the Minimum Wages Act before JMFC III 14--
5Court, Belgaum, for recovery of Money. Therefore , petitioners have presented this petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.
1 and 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submitted that, 5th respondent has erred in holding that 2nd respondent is a child labour as on the date of the inspection made by the competent authority on 12.1.2010 and submitted that, in fact, petitioners have prod uced the birth certificate issued by the jurisdictional authority which shows that the date of birth of the 2nd respondent is 10.6.1995 and therefore, he is not a child labour and he is aged about 17 years and therefore, the finding recorded to that effect by the 5th respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
5. As against this, learned Government Plea der for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 inter-alia, contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent. Further he submitted that, the 5th respondent after due consideration of the oral and documentary 6 evidence available on file has recorde d the said finding, which is just and proper and therefo re, interference by this court is not called for.
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after careful per usal of the materials available on file, including the impugn ed order passed by the 5th respondent, the question that arises for my consideration is, as to whether the finding recorde d by the 5th respondent that 2nd respondent is a child labour as on the date of inspection, which is purely a questio n of fact that has been rightly taken note by the 5th respondent and after appreciation of oral and documenta ry evidence has recorded a finding that he is a child labo ur as on the date of inspection. However, the specific stand taken by the petitioners that, 5th respondent has not at all considered the the documentary evidence produc ed by them and therefore, they are constrained to file this peti tion invoking the Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the 5th respond ent has held that, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for a minimum 7 wages and the petitioners have not followed circular dated 17.7.2003 issued by the Government and knowing fully well, they have violated the regulations. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered and appreciated by the by the 5th respondent and directed the petitioners to pay balance amount within thirty days from the said date after taking into consideration the status of the petitioners and respondent 3 and 4 who are the brothers of the 2nd petitioner. The reasoning assigned by the 5th respondent is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.
Nor I find any error or illegality as such committed by the 5th respondent to entertain the relief sought in this petition.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 within four weeks from today.
Sd/ tsn* JUDGE