Karnataka High Court
The Chairman Mysugar And Ryots Welfare ... vs Smt Vijayamma on 23 September, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
woe ae
{BY SRL VS NAIK, ADV FOR R1)
«1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
BEFORE a
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY .
WRIT PETITION No. 3393 /2008 (L-MW)
BETWEEN : |
1 'THE CHAIRMAN | so
MYSUGAR & RYOTS WELFARE TRUS! Po
MANDYA. | | 7:
2 'THE GENERAL | MANAGER :
MYSUGAR COMPANY LTD.
MANDYA..
3 THE shorerank~ mS
MYSUGAR & RYOTS WELFARE TRUST
SUGAR TOWN, MANDYA.
Be .. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. i. RAJA, ADV)
AND: = |
4 ViGAYAMMA ~
AGE: MAGOR
_ 38 CROSS ROAD
2° THE LABOUR OFFICER &
. ~- AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM
~. WAGES SUB-DIVISION II
BANDIGOWDA BADAVANE
MANDYA.,
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. A S SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR my
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226.
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TC --
QUASH THE ANNEXURE-D ORDER DTD. 15.11-2007. ma
PASSED BY THE R2 AS NULL AND VOID.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY |.
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE. COURT MADE THE. 7
FPOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners having engaged the services of the Ist respondent as a workman W.€. ae 1.3. 1983 tis. , discharge duties in the Mysugar Kalyan. Mandir scenatnaed, her services on 10.12.1996 which Jed. to-an "hachistrial adjudication before the Labour 'Court: in "i i, D.. 81 / o7 and by award dt. 16.3.2003, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the Ist respondent to the original post + along with 50% of the back wages for. the period 'from 20.4.1997 to 16.8.2003. The petitiones, implemented the award on 1.10.2003. : 7 Thereaflerwarts, the lst respondent having not received the : - minimum 1 wages i in terms of the Notifications dt. 25.11.1996, : 6. 2. 2002. and 1.4.2006 under the Minimum Wages Act, 7 1948, for short 'Act'", filed a claim petition under Section 20 ee, 7 of the Act, resulting in the order dt. 15.11.2007 Annexure-D a determining Rs.2,11,045/- as difference im wages and ps swwwewsss = hee PP SE Ce ey Rs.1,000/ - towards compensation, totalling to Rs,.2,12,045.40. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner a contends that the claim for difference in wage as between the . ~ payment made and the minimum wage fixed, weds instituted - nO by filing a petition under Section 20 of the Act, oeeassioning :
an inordinate delay, the 24 respondent-authority feil i im error in accepting the explanation offered as suffci cient cause to condone the delay, | am.not impicssed by that suilisission. I say so because admittedly, the petitioner did not pay wages at the rates 'notified, : coupled: with the fact that the respondent after a pre longed litigation s successfully secured an award of the Labour. 'Court setting aside the order dtd.10.12. 1996, of dismissal reinstatement with directing 50% back wage es, which was implemented on 1.10.2003, cannot t but constitute sufficient cause for the delay. In any "event, the Authority being satished with the explanation, no ~ daterference is called for.
3. The petitioner having not produced the calculation 7 -shect appended to the order impugned Annexure-D, the 24 Ik
-4.
respondent on being directed placed the original order for scrutiny, Learned AGA submits that the 2°¢ respondent. having regard to the rates of wages fixed in aforesaid three s. . Notifications, in respect of the schedule mrt - _ was entitled to.
4, SrV.S.Naik, learned counted for "the 'ist respondent submits that the "Ist respondent | would be satisfied if the petitioner were to mae payment of wages at the rate set out in the Not tiftcations | Ww. e, f 1. 10. 2003 onwards and that the respondent g gives up her claim t to the difference of wage for. 'the 'peviod prior. thereto, 'though the order impugned dinects 'the : petitioner to pay the amount determined. oe ie B Having regard to the nature of avocation and the my fact that the Ist respondent workman is entitled to wages at "the rate fixed "under the Notifications, im respect of the : schedule employment, in the circumstances, [| think it "appropriate to accept the submission of the learned counsel . Sri.V.S.Naik, ine ~5.
impugned, the lst respondent is entitled: to se Se . for the period from 1,.10.2003 to 30.9. 2007. % The petitioner ; in terms of the interim order dt. "g. 4. 1.2008 deposited Rs. 1,05,523/- before this Court, Registry is: directed to issue a cheque in favour of the Ist respondent for Rs. 101, 883.60 and refund the balance t to. che 'petitioner, :
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge in. -.