Karnataka High Court
The Secretary vs Sri Thathegowda S/O Puttegowda on 30 May, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.37858 /2009 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
1. The Secretary,
Chinkurali Grama Panchayat,
Chinakurali Post and Hobli,
Pandavapur Taluk,
Mandya District - 571 455.
2. The Executive Officer,
Taluk Panchayat,
Pandavapura,
Mandya District - 571 434. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. B.J.Somayaji, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri.Tathegowda,
Son of Puttegowda,
Aged 62 years,
2. Sri.Sanna Thammegowda,
Son of Marikalegowda,
Aged 63 years,
Both represented by
The Convener,
Karnataka State Government,
Daily Wages Employees
Federation (Hubli),
District Unit: Mandya
2
C/o. M/s. Shivaram,
A.C.Office Road,
Pandavapura - 571 434.
3. The Labour Officer & Authority,
Under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Mandya Sub-Division - I,
Mandya - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Keerthi Kumar D., AGA for R3)
. . . .
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and
set-aside the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the
Labour Officer & Authority under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948, Mandya (Annexure-C) and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for final hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 30.06.2009 impugned at Annexure-C to the petition.
2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 who are working in the petitioner-Grama Panchayath had filed the claim petition under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before respondent No.3 claiming the difference of the wages for the periods from 01.09.1989 to 3 31.10.2001. The respondent No.3 having considered the rival contentions has through the order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure - C) directing payment of the amount as quantified in respect of respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court in this petition.
3. The respondents No.1 and 2 though served have not chosen to appear in the petition. Be that as it may, respondent No.3 being the competent authority who has considered the matter and passed the orders has filed the objections to the petition seeking to sustain the order impugned and to contend that the determination as made to pay the difference of the wages to the respondents No. 1 and 2 is justified. The respondent No.3 seeks to contend that the Minimum Wages Notification dated 08.03.1985 issued by the Government of Karnataka is made applicable in the instant case and accordingly the minimum wages as fixed there under has been taken into consideration while quantifying the amount as claimed by the 4 respondents No. 1 and 2. In that view, they seek to sustain the action.
4. In the light of the above, having heard the learned counsel, I have perused the petition papers.
5. The fact that the respondents No. 1 and 2 who were earlier working in the Forest Department and were thereafter absorbed into the petitioners' service is not in dispute. Even if that be the position, the issue for consideration herein is as to whether the notification which has been relied by the Authority would be justified when such notification was issued in respect of the minimum wages payable to the employees of the Forest Department and in that light, whether the same could have been made applicable to the petitioners herein more particularly, in the circumstance where the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act was made applicable to the Urban, Local Bodies/Town and Village Panchayats only in the year 2011 through the notification dated 21.02.2011. In that background, a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the entire consideration is 5 based on the notification dated 08.03.1985 and the same is also sought to be justified through the objection statement filed on behalf of the respondent No.3.
6. Per contra, what is necessary to be taken note is that the petitioners herein while seeking to justify their action and to contend with regard to the appropriate wages being paid, had filed a detailed objection statement before the Competent Authority namely, respondent No.3 and in that regard had also pointed out that when the services of the respondents No. 1 and 2 who were earlier employed with the Forest Department on daily wages basis was handed over to the Mandal Panchayat, the wages as paid was applicable and the fixation of the wages has been made as per the Government Order dated 08.04.1994 and the same has been enhanced in such fashion as has been ordered by the Government. If that be the position, when the notification as taken into consideration by the respondent No.3 was not applicable to the petitioners, the quantification of the amount by treating the same as 6 the difference of the minimum wages as is done by the respondent No.3 would also not be justified. The wages as being paid to the respondents is based on the very Government Order which had been passed by handing over the services of respondents No. 1 and 2 and similarly placed workers. Therefore, if these aspects of the matter are kept in view, the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure - C) would not be justified and the same is accordingly quashed.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/AV