Director, Watershed Development Programme, vs R. Omkarappa

Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.—The petitioners are before this Court challenging the orders dated 22.6.2012 and 23.8.2012 passed by the Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority [the ''Authority'', for short], whereby the Authority has directed the first petitioner to pay the difference of wages in a sum of Rs. 1,19,515.68/- for the six workmen who were denied the minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [the Act'', for short]. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. The respondents 1 to 10 filed an application under the provisions of the Act contending that they are paid less wages and Dearness Allowance for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.2000. The petitioners herein filed statement of objections denying the allegations made by the respondents contending that the respondents have not been appointed by them. The Authority allowed the application considering the rival submissions of the parties, against which the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4098/2006. This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition by order dated 31.5.2011 and remanded the matter back to the Authority for fresh disposal after impleading the State of Karnataka as one of the parties. After remand, the Authority under the Act after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and considering the rival submissions of the parties, allowed the application. This order of the Authority is impugned in this writ petition.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Authority failed to consider that the workmen-respondents 1 to 6 were employed by the Head Mazdoor and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondents. The Authority wrongly applied the notifications issued under the provisions of the Act and computed the difference of minimum wages liable to be paid by the first petitioner contrary to the evidence on record much against the established principles of law.

Learned Counsel Sri. Srinivasa, appearing for the respondents, justifying the orders passed by the Authority, would contend that the petitioners have categorically admitted in their objections as well as in their evidence that the respondents were paid minimum wages of Rs. 40.45 ps per day as per the Government Notifications issued under the Act which has been considered by the Authority while computing the arrears of difference of minimum wages liable to be paid by the petitioners and passed an order directing the petitioners to make payment of Rs. 1,19,515.68/- to the respondents 1 to 6 which cannot be found fault with.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the Authority is justified in directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 1,19,515.68/- as arrears of minimum wages under the different notifications for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.2000.

It is an undisputed fact that the respondents 1 to 6 were working with the first petitioner as ''watchman''. It is discerned from the service certificate and the bank passbooks produced in evidence by the respondents that the respondents were working as workmen under the first petitioner. This fact is amply proved in the evidence led by the parties before the Authority. The respondents were paid the minimum wages through the Head Mazdoor as per the Notification dated 25.7.1995. If so, even for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.3.2000, the respondents are entitled to claim the minimum wages as prescribed under the Act which was not paid by the petitioners. The material on record discloses that there was relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents and petitioners were liable to pay minimum wages as prescribed under the Act. The first petitioner cannot absolve from its liability taking a stand that the workmen were paid through the Head Mazdoor. It is settled law that to discern the truth the corporate veil has to be lifted and the real facts are to be ascertained from the material available on record. The petitioners cannot escape the liability only for the reason that Rs. 40.45 ps was paid per day to the workmen as per the Notification dated 25.7.1995 through the Head Mazdoor. The notifications for different years prescribes the daily minimum wages as under:

Sl. No.

Years

Daily Minimum Wages [in Rs.]

1

1996-97

46.92

2

1997-98

51.63

3

1998-99

56.63

4

1999-2000

62.51

Thus, it is evident that this minimum wage fixed in the Notifications issued under the Act is not paid to the respondents which is rightly considered by the Authority and thus directed the petitioners to make the payment of difference of amount which is justifiable. No grounds are made out by the petitioners to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Authority.

In the result, writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.