PONNAMBALAN Vs. AUTHORITY UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. He is running a retail outlet for petroleum products in Palakkad in which the second respondent was employed as a sales assistant till December 4, 1988. Alleging non-payment of the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1947 (the Act in brief), the second respondent filed an application before the first respondent under Section 20 of the Act for direction to pay him the difference in wages as also compensation of Rs. 500/ -. The claim was in time only for the period subsequent to September 11, 1988 and was barred for the earlier period, being filed beyond the prescribed period of six months. There was accordingly a petition, separately filed, for condonation of the delay in filing the application, in so far as it related to the earlier period.

(2.) AFTER contest, the Authority functioning under the Act allowed the application in part. The claim for the period upto and inclusive of September 11, 1988 was held to be time-barred, the Authority not being able to discern any good ground to condone the delay in filing the application relating to that period. The Authority however allowed the application for the subsequent period from September 12 to December 4, 1988. Apart from directing payment of the differential wages, he also directed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,235/- by way of compensation, as against Rs. 500/- claimed. A copy of the Authority's order is Ext. P6.

(3.) THE second respondent-employee accepted the order Ext. P6 and did not challenge it in any manner known to law. But the employer felt aggrieved in so far as compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs. 3,235/- when the claim was only for Rs. 500/ -. He challenged the order Ext. P6 in so far as it was against him by filing the writ petition O. P. No. 8796 of 1990. The challenge was not however accepted by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition. It is so stated in the learned Judge's judgment. If the matter had rested with this dismissal, there would have been no controversy, nor this writ appeal. But the learned Judge went further, as a sentinel on the qui vive, to vindicate the constitutional right enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution of India: Accordingly he held that even in the absence of a petition by the employee second respondent, "once the court finds in a petition filed at the instance of the employer that violation of the constitutional right is writ large, the court shall not shirk from its duty to set things right as the court has public accountability". In this view of the matter, he issued a direction to the employer-appellant to pay the second respondent the entire amount claimed by him as minimum wages, from January 1, 1988 ignoring the bar of time of a substantial portion of the claim. This incidental award made by the learned Judge has resulted in this appeal by the employer, his contention being that the learned single Judge could not have issued the direction when the employee himself has not challenged that part of Ext; P6 which was against him in manner Known to law. The decision of the learned single Judge is reported as Ponnambalam v. Authority under M. W. Act, (1994-I-LLJ-1195 ).