VIKASANA Vs. KARIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER-employer asserts to have appointed the 1st respondent to cook food for children engaged as Labour, in the matter of implementing a scheme floated by the State Government, to abolish child labour. It is an admitted fact from 1.4.2005 to 30.6.2005. 1st respondent when employed as a cook was paid Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and thereafter from 1.7.2005 to 17.4.2006 was paid at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. According to the petitioner, the said payment was in terms of scheme 'Karnataka State Child Labour Eradication Project Society', whence the State fixed the remuneration payable to a cook while the 1st respondent claims that the minimum wage fixed by the State Government for similar activity of a cook in a hostel under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for short the 'Act' was Rs.2,475.10 per month and with effect from 14.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 and Rs.2,582/- per month with effect from 1.4.2006 to 17.4.2006 which when not paid, filed a claim petition invoking subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Act before the 2nd respondent-Authority, who, after taking on record the statement of objections filed by the petitioner and recording the depositions of the parties answered the issues holding that the petitioner was the employer and the 1st respondent-employee entitled to difference of minimum wage to Rs. 15,264/- in addition to Rs.736/- as penalty, totalling to Rs. 16,000/- by order dt. 27.1.2009 Annexure-A. Hence this petition.

(2.) ALTHOUGH learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Government floated the scheme where-under Rs. 1,500/- per month was the minimum wage for the cook, and therefore the 'Act' has no application, I am afraid deserves to be repelled. I say so because undoubtedly the petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961 carrying on the activity of providing food for child labour, with the object of abolition of child labour. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the findings of the Authority under the Act that the petitioner shall fall within the definition of the term 'employer' under Section 2(e) of the Act, so also the 1st respondent indisputably having been employed for preparation of food, as a cook, it cannot be disputed falls within the definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(i) of the Act.

(3.) ALTHOUGH a faint attempt was made to contend that there was no material to establish Rs.2,475.10 ps, the minimum wage fixed by the State Government for the period from 14.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 and Rs.2,482/-for the period from 1.4.2006 to 17.4.2006, does not; merit consideration. I say so because Minimum Wage Authority having regard to the notifications issued by the State Government, as applicable for the relevant period reckoned the minimum wage and after deducting the wages paid to the 1st respondent determined' the difference in minimum wage payable by the petitioner. In the result, the petition devoid of merit is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.