DHANVANTHRI CO-OP. HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE Vs. SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are by the appellant/petitioner questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 03.11.2009 passed in W.P. No.26345/2005 (L-MW) by the learned Single Judge, wherein the appellant/petitioner had assailed the correctness of the order dated 07.10.2005 passed by respondent No.2-Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Claim Authority on the ground that respondent No.1 does not have any power as on the date of inspecting the premises. The said writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was rejected. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant/petitioner-Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 owns and manages a Hospital-cum-Medical Research Centre and has engaged respondent Nos.4 to 16 in different posts such as Lab Technicians, Ambulance driver, Receptionist, Ayah, Nursing orderly, Staff nurse, Ward boy and Sanitary worker. The respondents, alleging short payment in monthly wage, less than the minimum wage prescribed by notification of the year 1996 under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short Act ), filed application invoking sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act for determination of the difference in minimum wage and penalty. In the application, the appellant had contended that they have filed detailed objections and opposed the claim. Inspite of that, the authority has not considered the same. Therefore, application filed by the appellant/petitioner was rejected by the Minimum Wages Authority. The same has been questioned in W.P.No.5137/2005. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 21.02.2005 rejected the petition, permitting the petitioner to urge the point of jurisdiction and to cross-examine the applicants/respondent Nos.4 to 16. Consequent, thereto, the appellant/petitioner cross-examined the applicants/respondent Nos.4 to 16 and thereafter did not lead evidence in support of its case. The respondent No.2-authority under the Act, having regard to the material on record and more appropriately the admission of the appellant on 11.12.2002 and 21.08.2003 that, the applicants would be paid the difference of minimum wage, if granted a month s time, by order dated 07.10.2005, allowed the applications, directed the payment of Rs.42,101/- as the difference in wage, Rs.2,10,505/- as the penalty (five times the difference in wage), totaling Rs.2,52,606/- in respect of 13 respondents. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondent No.2, the appellant filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge. In the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the earlier order and following the judgment of this Court in N.S. Srinivasamurhty and Others vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and others has rejected the writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Submission of Sri. Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the out set is that, learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition and confirming the direction to pay Rs.42,101/- as difference in wage and penalty five times the difference in wage, totaling Rs.2,52,606/- in respect of 13 respondents. The amendment to Section 70 and Section 118 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act as amended by Section 3 of Act No.2 of 2000 which came into force on 20.06.2000, specifically lay down that no Court or Labour or Revenue Courts or Industrial Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. In the instant case, the application was filed under the Minimum Wages Act before the respondent No.2 on 16.09.2002. Therefore, it is crystal clear that after amendment came into force, the respondents have no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 16. However, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decision in the case of N.S. Srinivasamurhty and Others vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka and others and rejected the writ petition. Further, he has contended at para 13 of the memorandum of appeal that, if for any reason this Hon ble Court comes to the conclusion that the claim application under the Minimum Wages Act is maintainable, then the appellant may kindly be granted one month s time to pay the difference of wages of Rs.42,105/- to the 13 employees. In such an event, the appellant submits that levy of five times penalty of Rs.2,10,505/- is unwarranted and unjustified on the ground that the appellant-Society is running under loss and is not financially sound. The accumulated loss as on 31.3.2008 is Rs.12,13,548/-. He is further quick to point out that, levy of five times penalty on a Cooperative Society which is being run on philanthropic approach to render medical aid to the public at Mysore is not justifiable.