AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Exhibit P1 is an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, in I.D. No. 34 of 2004, setting aside the dismissal of the respondent and ordering to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. Subsequently, the workman filed C.P. No. 40 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Kannur, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for the recovery of Rs. 3,83,782.65/-, towards wages for the period from February 1999 to July 2005, bonus, earned leave and medical allowances. In Exhibit P4 objections filed by the management, they raised a contention that the workman was appointed on a consolidated wages of Rs. 400/- per month and that, therefore, his claim for wages at the rate of Rs. 871/- per month was unsustainable. The Labour Court finally passed Exhibit P5 order, allowing the claim of the workman and upholding his entitlement for Rs. 871/- per month, being the minimum wages that was payable to him. It was challenging this order of the Labour Court that the appellant filed the Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.
The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his contention that having regard to the limited scope of enquiry, in an application filed under Section 33C(2), the Labour Court could not have adjudicated the entitlement of the workman for minimum wages. He also contented that if at all the workman had a case that minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not paid, he should have taken recourse to the machinery provided under that Act, instead of pressing that claim in an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In our view, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves only to be rejected in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Deepak Photos Vs. State of Kerala, which was rendered placing reliance on this Court''s earlier judgment in Hindi Prachar Press v. State of Kerala and Others [ 1982 KLT 285 ] and the Apex Court judgment in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. Chandi Lal Saha and others, . In that judgment, this Court held thus:
Finally it was argued that since a specific machinery is provided under the Minimum Wages Act, a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be filed before the Labour Court. This issue was considered by this Court and the Apex Court in Hindi Prachar Press v. State of Kerala and others [1982 KLT 285 ] and Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. Chandi Lal Saha and others, and held that claim for minimum wages can be filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it is a benefit computable. Rates of minimum wages are fixed by notification and workers are entitled to receive the same as a legal right and service condition.
In the light of the above authoritative pronouncement, we can only reject the contention now urged before us. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails, and is dismissed.
It is informed that in compliance with the order dated 31.01.2011, the appellant has already deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Labour Court, Kannur. In view of this judgment dismissing the appeal, it is directed that the respondent would be at liberty to make an application before the Labour Court and realize the said amount. In so far as the balance amount due from the appellant is concerned, we allow the appellant to pay the same to the respondent in two equal instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 31.10.2014 and the second of which shall be paid on or before 31.01.2015.