IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 13774 of 2006(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.RAM MOHAN, S/O.REGHUNATH MENON, PROPRIETOR, TRUST WELL MARKETING, DOOR NO.20/1128, CUSTOM ROAD, THALASSERY 670 101. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.T.P.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. O.SAJEEVAN, S/O.LATE CHANDU NAIR, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, ERUVATTY AMSOM, KOVOOR, THALASSERY 670 647. 2. THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13774 of 2006(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBTIS EXT.P1: COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY R1 UNDER SECTION 20(2) OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT AND 33C (2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT. EXT.P2: COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 18.7.2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.1.2006 IN C.P.NO.35/2001 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P4: COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 18.5.2007 UNDER SECTION 7 AND ALSO SECTION 34. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13774 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the opposite party management in C.P.No.35/2001 before the Labour Court, Kannur. The 1st respondent is the petitioner in that Claim Petition. He claimed arrears of wages from the petitioner in that Claim Petition. After taking evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the case of the workman is to be accepted. But, on the question of quantum, the workman was directed to file a statement showing the amounts due as per the document available before the Court. Pursuant to the same, the workman filed a statement claiming the amount of Rs.61,294.54. The petitioner did not file any objection to the said statement. Therefore, the statement of the workman was accepted and that amount was directed to be paid to the 1st respondent workman, by Ext.P3 order in that C.P. The petitioner is challenging that order on two grounds. The first is that part of the amounts claimed is arrears of minimum wages which claim, as per the W.P.(C)No.13774/06 2 Minimum Wages Act, is barred by limitation. The second is that there were no proper evidence before the Court to come to the conclusion regarding the quantum of wages payable to the 1st respondent workman. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is settled law that simply because, under the Minimum Wages Act, the claim is barred by limitation, the workman is not estopped from filing an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hindi Prachar Press v. State of Kerala and others [1982 KLT 285] is a decision on the point by this Court. In fact in the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and others [AIR 1964 SC 752], the Supreme Court also took the same view in respect of claim under the Payment of Wages Act. In view of the same, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that, since, under the Minimum Wages Act, the claim was barred by limitation, the C.P. is not maintainable for arrears of minimum wages. 3. As far as the quantum awarded is concerned, the Labour Court has considered the matter elaborately as is W.P.(C)No.13774/06 3 evident from the order itself, on the basis of the evidence before it. The 1st respondent has filed a statement reducing his claim to Rs.61,294.54/-, although originally he claimed an amount of Rs.83,494.70/-. The petitioner did not care to challenge the correctness of the statement by filing any objection. That being so, the petitioner cannot now turn around and contend that, that statement is not correct. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.13774/06 4 W.P.(C)No.13774/06 5