Karnataka High Court
Anand.R vs Regional Labour Commissioner And on 20 September, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 11645 OF 2024 (L-MW)
BETWEEN:
1. ANAND.R,
S/O C. RAMANJANEYA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
#318/A, 1ST MAIN,
YARAYANAPALYA,
BANGALORE - 560016.
2. ANBUDORAI SUBHADRA,
D/O ANBUDORAI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NO.8, 4TH CROS,
BOSCO NAGAR,
T.C PALYA, BANGALORE - 560036.
3. ARUN KUMAR. R,
S/O RAJENDRAN. N,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Digitally NO.106, 3RD CROSS,
signed by 7TH MAIN GOUTHAM NAGAR,
SUMA B N
BANGALORE - 21.
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka 4. BABU. T,
S/O THIMMARAYAPAP,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
NEARMARIYAMMA TEMPLE,
HOSKOTE K - 562114.
5. BABU VINOTH KUMAR. B,
S/O BAKYANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NO.45, M. BLOCK, KGF,
BANGARPET,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
KOLAR - 563117.
6. B. BALACHANDAR,
S/O BHAGYANANDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.45, M BLOCK,
BANGARPET, CHAMPIONREEFS,
BANGARPET KOLAR 563117.
7. DILIP RAJA,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEAR,
NO.39, BHOVI COLONY,
BENGALURU 49.
8. GANGADHARA V,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.106, 2ND CROSS,
YARANAPALYA,
BANGALORE 56001.
9. GAYATHRI D,
W/O ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.106, 3RD CROS,
7TH A MAIN, GOUTHAM NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 021.
10. GOPALAKRISHNA. M,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3 BYRAPPA LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS NAGASHETTYHALLI,
2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE 560 094.
11. HEMA. G,
W/O S BABU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO. 19 3RD CROS,
RM NAGAR MAIN RAOD,
BANGALORE 560 043.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
12. K. SRINIASA DESIKAN,
S/O D. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
3, 1ST FLOOR,
GST BUILDING NO.10/13,
S G NARAYAN LAYOUT,
LALBAGH ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE 560 027.
13. KEMPANNA. V,
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
MARASANDARA MANDOOR POST,
BANGALORE 560 049.
14. LAVANYA. A,
W/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
AVALAHALLI COLONY,
AVALAHALLI,
BANGALORE 560 049.
15. LOKESH V,
S/O M. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
#73, CHURCH ROAD,
1ST CROSS, A NARAYANAPURA,
DOORAANINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
16. M JAYALAKSHMI,
D/O C M MANICKAM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YARS,
NO. 1239/A A BLOCK,
RAILWAY STATION VIJINAURA,
BANGALORE 560 016.
17. M.N. MOHAN RAO,
S/O N NARASHIMHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
38, BEHIND K.R PURAM RAILWAY STATION,
CHOULTRY VIJINAPURA,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
18. MUBARAK. S,
S/O SARDAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.60 KOTHAMANGALA,
KOLAR 563 127.
19. MUNIYAMMA J,
W/O MARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#178/1, COLONY AALAHALLI,
VIRGONAGAR,
BANGALROE 560049.
20. NIRANJANA MURTHI K.M,
S/O K M BHOGAIAH SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
108, ITI S MEN'S HOSTEL, ITI COLONY,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
21. NITHIN RAJ R,
S/O RAJA KUMAR S,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
NO E 23 NORTH 2ND LANE ITI TOWNSHIP,
DOORAVANI NAGAR, BANGALORE 16.
22. P.V.N. SRINIVASULU,
S/O P. YANADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
26, 3RD CROSS,
SIR MV NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
23. RAJESH R,
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NO.230, 4TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN BHOVI COLONY,
R M NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 016.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
24. RAMESH M,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
#148, YARAYANAPALYA,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560016.
25. RANJITH S,
S/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
#311/A, MADAKARI NAYAKA,
1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
YARAYANA PALYA,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
26. RAVI M,
S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO.125, NEAR RAMA TEMPLE YARANAPALAYA,
RM NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 016.
27. RAVI MALOTTAR,
S/O DODDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
GOGERI, BENCHAMATTI,
GOGERI, GADAG,
KARNATAKA - 582114.
28. RAVI N,
S/O NARASIMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
79, GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK,
GOWDAGERE VILLAGE,
GOWDAGERE,
CHIKKABALALLPURA 561211.
29. ROSY T,
W/O BABU ABETH NEGO M,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
NO. 56, OPP. 8TH CROSS,
ST . ANTONYS SCHOOL RAOD,
BANGALORE 560 016.
30. RUBIYA PINJAR,
D/O HUSENSAB,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEAR,
E-930, B AREA,
3RD CROSS, ITI COLONY,
K.R PURAM,
BANGALORE 560 016.
31. SRIDHAR D,
S./O DORAISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
#11 NEW NO.92,
CHENNAPPA GARDE,
KR PALYAM, JEEVANAHALLI, COXTOWN,
BANGALORE NORTH 56005.
32. SRIKANTHA.R,
S/O RAGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
#17, 2ND CROSS,
E BLOCK, KRISHNA GARDEN,
RV POST, RR NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 059.
33. SRINIVAS A.R,
S/O RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#30, CHOULTRY,
BEHIND KR PURAM RAILWAY STATION,
VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
34. G. THILAKAVATHY,
W/O VARADARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
153, MUNIKALAPPA LAYOUT,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGLAORE 560 016.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
35. UDAYA KUMAR,
S/O HARISCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
#36, 2ND CROSS,
MANJUNATH LAYOUT,
R T NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 032.
36. VENKATESH L R,
S/O RAMACHANDRAYA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO. 187, LAKSHMIPURA,
RAMANGARA 561201.
PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAITREYI KRISHNAN.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT,
1948,
SHRAM SADAN,
BENGALURU 560 058.
2. M/S ITI LTD,
(INDIAN TELEPHONES INDUSTRIES LIMITD),
A CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING OF THE
UNION OF INDIA,
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT ITI
BHAWAN,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
3. SMT. MANJULA,
DIRECTOR M/S VANITHA UDYOGA SAHAKARA
SANGHA LTD, NO. D 29,
NORTHAVENUE ITI TOWNSHIP, DOORAVANIANGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
4. THE DIRECTOR,
M/S MAHILA UDYOGA SAHAKARA SANGHA LTD,
NO. D29, NORTH AVENUJE ITI TOWNSHIP,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
5. POOJYAYA SECRETARY SERVICES,
NO.22, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEAR 108,
B GANGANAGAR, RAHMATH NAGAR, R T NAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 032.
6. SHRI. K.S. GOPALAKRISHNA,
NO. 14, 2ND CROSS,
CAMBRIDGE ROAD ULSOOR,
BANGALORE 560 016.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHUBHA S. CGC FOR R1;
SRI. R. JAYA CHANDRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED.
NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE R1 DATED 16/02/2024 (PLACED AS
ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE PETITION IN CLAIM
APPLICATION NO. 47(6) 2023-B2 (PLACED AS ANNEXURE-A)
AND ETC,.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:38931
WP No. 11645 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners claiming to be the employees of respondent No.2 are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore - Respondent No.1 passed in claim application No.47(6)2023-B2 (36 cases) by which the applications filed by the petitioners seeking payment of wages as per the provision of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been dismissed.
2. The claim petitions filed by the petitioners individually under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 have been dismissed holding that the employment in which the petitioners are engaged do not come within schedule employment notified by the Central Government.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed by respondent No.1 to the said claim petitions submits that there was no such plea raised by the respondents except contending that there was no 'principle employer' and 'employee' relationship between respondent No.1 as the petitioners were
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 deploy through a labour contractor. He further submits that apart from there being no plea with regard to non application of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 respondent No.1 - the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) has not even adverted to the nature of the employment to which the petitioners are engaged in the light of provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act. She refers to an order dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment which is taken note of by the High Court of Delhi in the case of SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. VS. CYFUTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS reported in (2019)III LLJ 299 Delhi and relief upon the same, submits that the nature of the employment to which the petitioners are being engaged indeed falls within the category of the employment listed in the schedule to the Act,. Accordingly, to the counsel submits that the said aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the respondent No.1. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
4. Perusal of the petition averments would indicate that respondent No.2 is engaged in telecommunication and technology segment and the petitioners are rendering their service in the highly skilled category which is enlisted at para
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 No.6 of the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence before the respondents authority which is extracted herein for immediate reference:
"1. Telephone Checking and Shipping/Packing.
2. Welding Work
3. Power Press
4. Powder Coating.
5. Plating
6. Vacuum Packing
7. Black oxide Coating
8. Hot Air Leveling
9. Stripping
10. Etching
11. HDPE optical Cable Work.
12. Milling Work
13. Lathe Work
14. SheetCutting
15. Forming of Sheetmetal.
16. Screen printing
17. Acid Pickling
18. CNC Drilling.
19. Gem Scoring
20. Raw Material cutting
21. Electrical work
22. Photo Printing
23. HDPE Jumbo and Forklifter, Grade 1
24. Winding of Finished HDPE cables."
5. The order dated 27.03.2019 now furnished by the petitioners reads as under:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Central Government vide Notification No. S.0. 188(E) dated 19 January, 2017 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment the undersigned, hereby revise the rates of Variable Dearness Allowance on the basis of the average consumer price index number for the preceding period of six months ending on 31.12.2018 reaching 301.33 from 288.33 (base 2001= 100) and thereby resulting in an increase of 13
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 points for Industrial Workers as under. This order shall come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2019.
The rates of Variable Dearness Allowance for workers employed in CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF ROADS OR RUNWAYS OR IN BUILDING OPERATIONS INCLUDING LAYING DOWN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, WIRELESS, RADIO, TELEVISION, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH AND OVERSEAS COMMUNICATION CABLES AND SIMILAR OTHER UNDERGROUND CABLING WORK, ELECTRIC LINES, WATER SUPPLY LINES AND SEWERAGE PIPE LINES.
Category of worker Rates of V.D.A. Area wise per day
(in Rupees)
A B C
Unskilled 61 50 40
Semi- 66 57 47
Skilled/unskilled
Supervisory
Skilled / Clerical 73 66 57
Highly Skilled 79 73 66
Therefore the minimum rates of wages showing the basic rates and Variable Dearness Allowance payable w.e.f. 01.04.2019 will be as under:-
Category of worker Rates of wages including V.D.A. per day (in Rupees) A Area B Area C Area Unskilled 523+61=584 437+50=487 350+40=390 Semi- 579+66=645 494+57=551 410+47=457 Skilled/Unskilled Supervisory Skilled/Clerical 637+73=710 579+66=645 494+57=551
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 Highly Skilled 693+79=772 637+73=710 579+66=645 The VDA has been rounded off to the next higher rupee as per the decision of the Minimum Wages Central Advisory Board.
The classification of workers under different categories will be same as in Part- I of the notification, whereas classification of cities will be same as in the Part- Il of the notification dated 19th January, 2017. The present classification of cities into areas A, B & C is enclosed at Annexure 1 for ready reference."
6. Definition of term schedule employment as provided under Section 2(g) of the Act, as reads as under:
"Scheduled employment" means an employment specified in schedule, or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment."
7. Perusal of the nature of the work as described at para No.6 of the affidavit read in light of the order dated 27.03.2019 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment would indicate that there appears to be nexus between the nature of work being carried on by the petitioners and the "schedule employment".
8. This has been taken note of by the High Court of Delhi in the case SUMIT KUMAR SHARMA (supra) wherein at para Nos.3, 15, 25 and 26 the High Court of Delhi has held as under:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 "3. The employees were all working as Technical Support Executive (TSE) in the Internet Helpline Department of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) (Respondent No. 2 in the employees' appeals) for broad band services having helpline No. 1504. This was akin to call centre work. Their main work was to attend to complaints incidental to the telecommunication operations of MTNL. While the employees worked under the direct employment of CIPL, the arrangement was that MTNL would enter into fresh contracts with private parties for supply of workmen while the employees like the ten Appellants before this Court continued working for MTNL. CIPL is one such private company primarily engaged in the business of providing workmen.
15. The first question that requires to be considered is whether the impugned notification dated 19th Janurary, 2017 issued by the Government of India applies to CIPL. The relevant portion of the said notification reads as under:
"S.O. 188(E).--Whereas the draft proposal to revise the minimum rates of wages per day payable to the Schedule mentioned categories of employees engaged in the employment of "Construction of Maintenance of Roads or Runways or in Building Operations including laying down Underground Electric, Wireless, Radio, Television, Telephone, Telegraph and Overseas Communication Cables and similar other underground Cabling Work, Electric Lines, Water Supply Lines and Sewerage Pipe Lines" was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub- section (ii) as required by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948) vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment number S.O. 2834 (E), dated the 1st September, 2016 for information and inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, till the expiry of the period of two months from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing the said notification were made available to the public;"
25. There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the employees that the expression 'any process or branch of work forming part of such
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 employment' occurring in Section 2 (g) MWA should receive the widest interpretation.' A 'process' would include any work incidental to the main work and in the context of laying of underground cables including telephone, telegraph and overseas cables, it could involve a range of activities-unskilled, skilled, highly skilled or semi-skilled. For instance, the driver of a truck in which the cables are loaded would also be a person in such employment, since that process is incidental to the main work of laying cables. There could be for instance work of clerks and typists in an office arranging for the requisitioning of the underground cables. There could be numerous such incidental tasks without which the work of laying of underground cables itself cannot be meaningfully performed. This explains the legislature's deliberate use of the words 'or any process or branch of work forming part of such employment' in defining 'scheduled employment' under Section 2 (g) MWA.
26. Turning to the notification itself, in the list of skilled, semi-skilled, highly skilled, clerical and unskilled workmen there is a very wide range of work involved. In the clerical category are included computer/data entry operators, telephone operators, typists and any other categories by whatever named called which are of clerical nature. Even in the highly skilled categories, there are Plumbers, Welders, Masons and Foreman etc. Clearly, therefore, the employees in the present case would fall in the clerical cadre of persons employed in connection with the main work of laying of underground cables.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter, this Court do not see any reasons to differ from the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the matter.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:38931 WP No. 11645 of 2024 The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the applications filed by the petitioners and shall pass appropriate order after affording opportunities to the parties within outer limit of six months from the date of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2