AJITHKUMAR B Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashok B. Shenoy for petitioner and Mr. Gopalakrishna Kurup for respondent No. 3 and Muraleedharan Nair, Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. The petitioner is a workman who was employed as a salesman in the second respondent cooperative society. He was appointed by the third respondent, President, Consumer Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. and was placed on probation for a period of one year. According to the petitioner he was not paid the wages at the rate of minimum rate of wages fixed by the Government of Kerala by notification No. GO(RT) 750/87 / LBR dated 15.5.1987 issued under S.5 of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 in respect of employees in shops and commercial establishments. According to the petitioner the provisions of the said Act squarely governs the petitioner and the second respondent society. It is his case that he was paid wages at the rate lesser than the minimum rates of wages as fixed by the aforesaid notification. Being entitled under S.12 of Minimum Wages Act 1948, to get the wages at the minimum rate of wages fixed as aforesaid, the petitioner requested the respondents 2 and 3 to pay him wages as per minimum wages notification aforementioned. The request of the petitioner was never heeded to it. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 before the Labour Court claiming from the respondents 2 and 3 a sum of Rs. 11,739.35 as balance wages for the period of 18.5.1991 to 31.8.1992 after setting off the wages already paid to the petitioner from the prescribed minimum rate of wages payable to him.

(2.) The respondents filed the written objection contending that the application is not maintainable under S.33C(2) of the Act, that as per R.184 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules every employee appointed to any of the categories of service is to on probation for one year liable to be extended upto two years that there is no prescribed minimum wages for a probationer and the notification dated 15.5.1987 is inapplicable to the petitioner, that the petitioner was appointed as a salesman or probation for one year as per order dated 17.5.1991 and that he was dismissed from service on 31.12.1992, that against dismissal from service the appeal filed by him under S.18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act is pending and therefore, the petitioner has to approach the authorities under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and not under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also stated that the calculation of amounts claimed is wrong.

(3.) The petitioner in reply to the written objection filed by the respondents, filed a detailed replication specifically refuting the 2nd and 3rd respondents contention and contending inter alia that the 2nd respondent though a cooperative society formed under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act it is a 'shop' as defined in S.2(6) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 and therefore, the salesman working therein is entitled to minimum wages payable to employees in shops as per notification No. GO (Rt) 750/87 / LBR dated 15.5.1987. It is also contended that the petitioner being a probationer cannot be a ground to deny payment of notified minimum wages applicable to employees in shops and that his claim for minimum wages can be the subject matter of an application under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the calculation made by him is only to be upheld.