IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 19456 of 2002(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. PARAVOOR INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE POWERLOOMS LTD. NO. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, M.J. ANTONY, EDAYAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, MUPPATHADAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,(AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGES ACT, COCHIN-30. 2. ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, GRADE -II, NORTH PARAVOOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.19456/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.4.02 IN M.W.A.NO.3/00. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.19456 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative society. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Minimum Wages Act, whereby the Authority directed the petitioner to pay minimum wages to the tune of Rs.1,04,257/- to the employees employed by him. The proceedings before the Minimum Wages Authority were initiated by the Assistant Labour Officer, Paravoor, pursuant to an inspection made by him in the establishment of the petitioner. He detected that the society is not paying minimum wages to its employees and accordingly filed the petition under the Minimum Wages Act before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, viz., the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam. The Deputy Labour Commissioner took evidence of both sides. After appreciating the evidence on both sides, the Authority believed the evidence of the Assistant Labour Officer and two of the workers and directed payment of wages as stated in the order o.p.19456/02 2 passed by the Authority. That is under challenge before me. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner before me is that they are not employees of their establishment, but they are only trainees. These trainees are to undergo four years' training. According to him, the training programme itself is approved by the Director of Handloom and Textiles as evidenced by Exts.D2 and D3. The so-called employees were only trainees so appointed who were undergoing training and who were being paid a stipend. He particularly points out that in Ext.P1 order there is no reference to Exts.D2 and D3 produced and marked by the petitioner before the Minimum Wages Authority. He would therefore, submit that no material was available before the Authority to find that the persons in question were actually employees of the society eligible for minimum wages and therefore, the Minimum Wages Authority could not have validly directed payment of minimum wages to the petitioner's employees, who according to him, are only trainees. 3. The original petition was admitted on 15.7.2002. On 16.10.2006 this Court directed the petitioner to implead two of the workers and to take out notice to them within a week. o.p.19456/02 3 Accordingly I.A.No.14933/2006 was filed seeking to implead two persons, which was allowed and urgent notice returnable in two weeks was ordered on 31.10.2006. Although the petitioner obtained a stay for one month on 15.7.2002, no steps were taken to get the stay extended further. However, the petitioner did not take appropriate steps to send notice to the additional respondents. Accordingly it came up in the “defect” List. Since it is an original petition of the year 2002, I decided to hear the matter on merits especially since the Minimum Wages Authority is represented by the learned Government Pleader. Accordingly, I heard both parties. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The petitioner's contention is that in the co-operative society apart from a Secretary and two supervisors there are only trainees. This averment is very difficult to believe because of the written statement of the petitioner themselves before the Minimum Wages Authority which is extracted in paragraph 2 of Ext.P1. Therein the petitioner herein admitted that it is a powerloom co-operative society. It is also admitted that the objects of the society include imparting training. The natural o.p.19456/02 4 conclusion from the same is that apart from imparting training, they had other business also. Any powerloom business could not have been carried on without any employees other than trainees. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe the averments of the petitioner. Further the Minimum Wages Authority has recorded evidence of both sides and discussed the same elaborately in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Ext.P1, which read thus: “4. After filing rejoinder the case was posted for evidence of the claim petitioner. The first witness, the inspector was examined as AW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the inspection note prepared by the claim petitioner at the time of inspection on 7.10.99. Ext.A2 is the office copy of the inspection note issued by the claim petitioner to the opposite party. Ext.A3 series are the show cause notice and calculation statement. Ext.A4 is the letter issued by the opposite party to the claim petitioner for extension of time. Ext.A5 is the complaint of the employees to the Assistant Labour Officer stating that they are not getting minimum wages. After examining the claim petitioner and marking the above said documents the case was posted for further evidence of the claim petitioner. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the claim petitioner as AW2 and AW3. Both the witnesses are employees of the opposite party. During chief examination the witnesses deposed that the training was over and they were appointed as employees of the opposite party on piece rate basis. During cross examination AW2 deposed that: “(Q). Further she stated that: o.p.19456/02 5 Even though both the witness were cross examined by learned counsel for the opposite parties nothing was brought in favour of the opposite party. After examining two witnesses the claim petitioner's evidence was closed and the case was posted for opposite party's evidence and three witnesses were examined on the side of the opposite party and marked Exts.D1 to D3. Ext.D1 is the attested copy of the wage register of the opposite party. Ext.D2 is the copy of the training scheme. Ext.D3 is the copy of the letter from the Director of Handloom and Textiles. DW1 was the supervisor of the opposite party. During cross examination by the authorised representative of the claim petitioner DW1 deposed that “(Q) (In Malayalam) During cross examination by the learned authorised representative of the claim petitioner DW2 deposed that: After examining three witnesses and marking the documents the opposite party's evidence was closed and the case was posted for hearing. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the establishment has no employees. All the persons in the establishment doing weaving works are trainees. Moreover their training scheme is approved by the Director of Handloom and Textiles. But on the other hand according to the learned authorised representative of the claim petitioner all the workers were given 9 months training and after 9 months they were posted as employees on piece rate wages. The employees weaving cloths and the cloth being sold from the show room. The opposite party's establishment could not pull on without workers. As the opposite party is selling the cloths produced by the workers enlisted can be termed as workers of the establishment and the wages were paid to them on piece rate basis. There is no wage reduction for trainees as per the provisions of the o.p.19456/02 6 minimum wages Act. Moreover the opposite party has no case that the employees in the establishment were recruited through the related industries Centre and they were paid stipend as per the apprentice Act 1071 or the rules made thereunder.” 4. I can interfere with the same only if the findings therein are perverse. Despite the persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I could not, by any stretch of imagination, find that the above findings are in any way perverse. Of course, the petitioner would point out that in Ext.P1 order there is no reference to Exts.D2 or D3 which would, according to him, clinch the issue in his favour. Ext.D2 is the copy of the training scheme and D3 is the letter from the Director of Handloom and Textiles approving the said scheme. The facts that there was a scheme and it was approved by the Director of Handloom and Textiles approved, need not necessarily mean that the petitioner was conducting his affairs in accordance with the scheme only. Further the lack of credibility of the petitioner's evidence to the effect that they were running the establishment with only a Secretary and two supervisors would taint this evidence also. The evidence of the applicant in the M.W.A. would go to show that after training the trainees were appointed o.p.19456/02 7 as weavers. The Authority himself had specifically found that in spite of cross-examination by the petitioner herein, who was the opposite party before the Authority, nothing was brought out in favour of the opposite party. In fact there was no evidence to show that the employees were weaving cloths and cloths were being sold from their show rooms. The further finding is that the petitioner establishment could not have pulled on without workers. I am of opinion that in respect of a beneficial legislation like Minimum Wages Act, such evidence is more than sufficient to return a verdict in favour of the workers. That only has been done by the Minimum Wages Authority by Ext.P1. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.19456/02 8 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.19456 of 2002-N =============== J U D G M E N T 17th July, 2008