Employer who got Sufficient Opportunity To Defend Claim Before Assistant Labour Officer Cannot Approach High Court Claiming Prejudice: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the employer was provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim before the authority cannot approach the High Court alleging that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the claim. Brief Facts: The Inspector initiated Minimum Wages proceedings against the Petitioner, alleging that...
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the employer was provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim before the authority cannot approach the High Court alleging that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the claim.
Brief Facts:
The Inspector initiated Minimum Wages proceedings against the Petitioner, alleging that she paid less than the minimum rate of wages to seven employees in her hotel establishment between 1.5.2009 to 30.10.2009. The Petitioner challenged an order issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam, pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The order mandated payment of Rs.1,58,958/- as arrears of minimum wages for the duration spanning from 1.5.2009 to 30.10.2009, along with compensation for 7 employees reportedly engaged by the Petitioner during the stated period. The Petitioner argued that the individuals mentioned in the order were hired on a temporary basis, based on their availability, and weren't permanent employees associated with her establishment, thus ineligible for minimum wages under the Act.
Furthermore, the Petitioner contended that there was a denial of the opportunity to present evidence before the issuance of the order. Additionally, she argued that the Assistant Labour Officer, who served as the Inspector under section 19(2) of the Act, harbored personal animosity towards her.
Observations by the High Court:
Despite receiving summons and multiple opportunities, including being declared ex parte on 14.10.2010, the High Court noted that the Petitioner failed to engage in the proceedings before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. It held that the lapse of diligence and absence of vigilance in defending the claim became apparent throughout the proceedings. Moreover, the Petitioner's allegation of a personal grudge held by the Assistant Labour Officer lacked substantiation.
The High Court underscored the welfare objectives of the Minimum Wages Act which aimed at ensuring fair remuneration for various employments. Section 20 of the Act outlines the adjudication process for claims, under which the respondent Inspector had filed the claim. The High Court held that the Petitioner was provided ample opportunity to contest the claim before the Authority but failed to avail herself of such opportunities. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
Case Name: Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor
Case Number: OP(LC) NO. 3837 OF 2012
Advocate for the Petitioner: S Sikky