Against The Judgment In Wp(C) ... vs Appellants/ on 9 September, 2020
(iv) Vimal Printers v. Omana (1982 KLT 923)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)Documents citing
Vimal Printers vs Omana on 9 August, 1982
Southern Railway Rep. By Its General ... vs S. Dharani And Ors. on 8 December, 2006
In Vimal Printers v. Omana 1982 Ker LT 923 : 1983 Lab IC 270 it was argued before this Court that the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was a self-contained Code and that a claim for minimum wages could not be brought under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. The court rejected the contention; and it seems to me that the reasoning of that decision should apply to the present contention in respect of the Payment of Wages Act also. It is interesting to notice that Section 22 of the P.W. Act is practically similar to the provisions of Section 24 of the Minimum Wages Act discussed in that case.
*S.R.P. Nampi Reddiar vs Smt.Ambilimol on 27 October, 2014
18. It was held that there would be a travesty
of justice if it was held that, to enforce a
W.P.(C).Nos. 17254/2010 & 15295/ 2014
15
statutory right, a workman has to go through the
cumbersome procedure of raising a dispute under
Section 10 of the ID Act. This Court relied on the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bombay
Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva (AIR 1964 SC, 752) and those
of this Court in Hindi Prachar Press v. State of
Kerala (1982 KLT 285), Vimal Printers v. Omana
(1982 KLT 923) and Deepak Photos v. State of
Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 511). Hence, the issue raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners would no
longer be available for consideration; the same is
not res integra.
The President vs M.V.Joseph on 13 November, 2009
4. The petitioner's establishment answers the definition of a
'shop' under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The
Government has issued notification fixing minimum wages of
employees of shops under the Shops and Commercial Establishments
Act. That being so, the petitioner is bound to pay minimum wages to
its employees. Further, this Court has in the decisions of Hindi
Prachar Press v. State of Kerala and others, 1982 KLT 285, Vimal
Printers v. Omana, 2983 KLT 923 and Deepak Photos v. State of
Kerala, 2000(3) KLT 511, has held that for recovery of minimum
wages fixed by the State, a petition under Section 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act would lie. Therefore, when computing the
benefits due to the respondent under Ext. P1 award, I do not find
anything wrong in the Labour Court taking the minimum wages fixed
as per the notification issued by Government as the basis for
calculating the amounts due to the respondent. In fact, I am of
opinion that by not paying minimum wages under the Minimum
Wages Act, the petitioner is liable for prosecution under the Minimum
Wages Act. Such a person who has transgressed law with impunity
is not entitled to the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I decline to
W.P.C. No. 32381/2009 -: 3 :-
exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.
1