IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32381 of 2009(P) -------------------------- CP.40/2005 of LABOUR COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PRESIDENT,THIRUMENI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.C.1392, P.O.THIRUMENI,VIA CHERUPUZHA-670511,THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.V.JOSEPH,S/O.LATE VARKEY,MADAYIL HOUSE P.O.THIRUMENI,VIA CHERUPUZHA-670 511, THALIPARAMBA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 32381 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. They dismissed the respondent from service. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which resulted in Ext. P1 award by the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode, whereby the Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner did not comply with the said award. The respondent filed C.P. No. 40/2005 before the Labour Court, Kannur for computing the monetary benefits due to the respondent under the award. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court passed Ext. P5 order computing the amounts due to the respondent and directed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,83,790/- as monetary benefits due to the respondent as per the terms of Ext. P1 award. That is under challenge before me at the instance of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's contention is that for computing the wages due to the respondent, the Labour Court has adopted the minimum wages payable to the respondent under the Minimum Wages Act. The contention is that insofar as payment of minimum wages was never an issue before the Industrial Tribunal in the I.D, in which Ext. P1 award was passed, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to consider that issue under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is in the nature of execution proceedings and the provision can be invoked only for enforcement of pre-existing rights. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of dismissal of the respondent from service, the respondent was being paid only an amount of Rs. 400/- as wages, which was not in dispute in the industrial dispute and W.P.C. No. 32381/2009 -: 2 :- therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to compute the monetary benefits due under the award on the basis that the respondent is entitled to wages at the rate in excess of Rs. 400/-. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to set aside Ext. P5 order. 3. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner . 4. The petitioner's establishment answers the definition of a 'shop' under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The Government has issued notification fixing minimum wages of employees of shops under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. That being so, the petitioner is bound to pay minimum wages to its employees. Further, this Court has in the decisions of Hindi Prachar Press v. State of Kerala and others, 1982 KLT 285, Vimal Printers v. Omana, 2983 KLT 923 and Deepak Photos v. State of Kerala, 2000(3) KLT 511, has held that for recovery of minimum wages fixed by the State, a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would lie. Therefore, when computing the benefits due to the respondent under Ext. P1 award, I do not find anything wrong in the Labour Court taking the minimum wages fixed as per the notification issued by Government as the basis for calculating the amounts due to the respondent. In fact, I am of opinion that by not paying minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, the petitioner is liable for prosecution under the Minimum Wages Act. Such a person who has transgressed law with impunity is not entitled to the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I decline to W.P.C. No. 32381/2009 -: 3 :- exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.