Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 580 (KER)

O. P. ALI v. STATE OF KERALA

2003-09-02

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2003
JUDGMENT : R. Rajendra Babu, J.—The common question involved in all the original petitions was whether the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder are applicable to the employment of peeling of Prawns in the Peeling sheds. Hence all these OPs are considered together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. O.P. 33325/2000 and O.P. 1863/2001 were filed by Sri. O.P. All who was running a peeling shed in Eramallur for the last three years. The 4th respondent, the Assistant Labour Officer, Cherthala inspected the above peeling, shed on July 4, 2000 and detected the violation of Rule 29(1), (2) and (3) (sic) of the Rules framed under the Minimum Wages Act. Further he found violation of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1958 also. Accordingly, the Assistant Labour Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, the employer. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, the Assistant Labour Officer file prosecution proceedings. O.P. 3325/2000 was filed for quashing the prosecution proceedings initiated against the petitioner viz., Exhibits P-3 to P-5 complaints before the J.F.C.M. Court-II, Cherthala, and also to declare that the petitioner was not liable to be prosecuted for the omission to maintain the Registers in terms of the Minimum Wages Rules. The Asst. Labour Officer conducted an inspection on August 5, 2000 and detected the very same violations again and filed complaints before the J.F.C.M., Court-II, Cherthala. O.P. 1863/2001 was filed by Sri O.P. AH for quashing the prosecution proceedings initiated against him, viz. Exhibits P-1 and P-2 complaints. 3. O.P. 35997/2000 was filed by Sri. K.M. Pareeth and two others who were running peeling sheds at Eramallur for the last three years. The Assistant Labour Officer inspected the peeling sheds on July 4, 2000 and detected non-compliance of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Rules. Accordingly prosecution steps were initiated against them by filing Exhibits P-1 to P-4 complaints before the J.F.C.M. Court-II, Cherthala. Exhibits P-1 to P-3 complaints were filed against the first petitioner Sri. K.M. Pareeth where as Exhibits P4 to P6 were filed against the 2nd petitioned Sri. S. Pareeth. Exhibits P-7 to P-4 complaints were filed against Sri. Mohanan, the 3rd petitioner and they filed the Original Petition for quashing the above complaints raising identical grounds as those raised in the O.P. 33325/2000. 4. O.P. 18916/2001 was filed by Sri. K.M. Pareeth where as Exhibits P4 to P6 were filed against the 2nd petitioned Sri. S. Pareeth. Exhibits P-7 to P-4 complaints were filed against Sri. Mohanan, the 3rd petitioner and they filed the Original Petition for quashing the above complaints raising identical grounds as those raised in the O.P. 33325/2000. 4. O.P. 18916/2001 was filed by Sri. N. Pushkaran who was running a peeling shed for the last 10 years at Eramallur. The Assistant Labour Officer conducted inspection of the peeling shed on November 30, 2000 and detected non-compliance of the Minimum Wages Rules and accordingly Exhibit P-1 series complaints had been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala. The above proceedings are under challenge raising identical contentions as those raised in the other original petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 6. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Minimum Wages Act had no application to the employment of peeling of prawns in peeling sheds as it was not an employment specified in the Schedule under the Minimum Wages Act in respect of which the Minimum Wages had been fixed. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the peeling of Prawns would come within item No. 32 of the Schedule as the Prawns are peeled for the purpose of exporting. It was further submitted that the Minimum Wages had been fixed as per the notification S.R.O. 350/92 in respect of peeling of prawns in peeling sheds. The Government also had understood peeling of prawns in peeling sheds as an item of employment coming within Item No. 32 of the Schedule and accordingly the Government fixed the minimum wages. Item 32 of the Schedule would take in peeling of Prawns as the peeling works were done mainly for the purpose of export of sea food. As the main purpose of peeling of Prawns, an item of sea food, was done in peeling sheds for export, it would come within item 32 of the Schedule and thereby the Minimum Wages Act would apply. The Government also issued notification fixing the minimum wages and as such the Minimum Wages Act would apply and hence the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 7. The Government also issued notification fixing the minimum wages and as such the Minimum Wages Act would apply and hence the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 7. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was no sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under law and as such the complaints filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Cherthala were liable to be quashed. Complaints were filed by the Assistant Labour Officers, who, according to them were authorised u/s 19 of the Minimum Wages Act to function as Inspectors. Section 19 authorises the Government, by notification in the Official Gazette to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purposes of the Act and to define the local limits within which they shall exercise their functions.' Accordingly, the Government issued notification S.R.O. 755/88, authorising the Assistant Labour Officers having jurisdiction over the area to be the Inspectors u/s 19 of the Act. In view of the above notification the Assistant Labour Officers were Inspectors competent to file the Criminal Complaints as provided u/s 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act. 8. Section 22-B deals with cognizance of offences by Courts. Sub-section (1) of Section 22-B reads: "(1) No Court shall take cognizance of a complaint against any personal offence: (a) under Clause (a) of Section 22 unless an application in respect of the facts constituting such offence has been presented u/s 20 and has been granted wholly or in part, and the appropriate Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf has sanctioned the making of the complaint; (b) under Clause (b) of Section 22 or u/s 22-A, except on a complaint made by, or with the sanction of an Inspector." Section 22-B(1)(a) deals with the filing of complaints for offences u/s 22-A of the Minimum Wags Act which deals with the violations of the provisions tinder the 'Minimum Wages' Act. The complaints alleging violation of the provisions under the Act are to be fifed on obtaining sanction from the appropriate Government or an officer authorised on that behalf. Section 22-B(1)(b) deals with the filing of complaints for offences u/s 22-B or Section 22-A of the Act. Section 22-B deals with the violation of the Rules. The complaints alleging violation of the provisions under the Act are to be fifed on obtaining sanction from the appropriate Government or an officer authorised on that behalf. Section 22-B(1)(b) deals with the filing of complaints for offences u/s 22-B or Section 22-A of the Act. Section 22-B deals with the violation of the Rules. In respect of those offences for violation of the provisions in the Rules, the sanction of the Inspector alone was necessary and the Inspector was fully competent to file the complaints. As the complaints filed by the Inspectors were in respect of the violations of the provisions of the Rules, all the complaints filed by the Inspectors were proper and in accordance with law. The above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners also cannot be accepted. 9. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the workers were not permanent or regular workers and if a worker would come for peeling work in the petitioner's shed, for one day, the next day he/she would be going to some other peeling shed for work and as such it was practically impossible to maintain registers. The above argument also cannot be accepted. The Secretary of the Thozhilali Ekopana Sahakarana Sangham approached this Court by filing O.P. 1520/1998 for directing the authorities to take appropriate measure for protecting the interests of the workers doing the works in the peeling sheds. The learned Government Pleader submitted that this Court by judgment dated March 22, 2000 directed the Government to appoint an officer and to enquire into the working conditions of the workers of Sea Food Industries in Cherthala and to take appropriate steps to improve the working conditions of such workers and to see that they are not exploited by the Management. It was on the basis of the above direction, the Inspectors inspected the peeling sheds and had taken appropriate proceedings against the petitioners who were not maintaining the Registers in accordance with the Minimum Wages Rules and the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958. The circumstances would clearly indicate that the Union had already taker up the grievances of the workers in the peeling sheds before this Court and this Court directed the Government to take necessary steps to see that the workers in the Peeling sheds were not exploited by the Management. The circumstances would clearly indicate that the Union had already taker up the grievances of the workers in the peeling sheds before this Court and this Court directed the Government to take necessary steps to see that the workers in the Peeling sheds were not exploited by the Management. In such circumstances, it is impossible to hold that a worker who is doing work in one particular peeling shed will seek employment in another Peeling Shed on the next day. In all probabilities, the workers would be doing the work, under the same employer and the above argument that it was impossible to maintain registers, considering the nature of the work, was quite unacceptable. Employers will have to maintain Registers in accordance with Minimum Wages Rules. The contention that it is impossible or impracticable to maintain Registers is devoid of merits and cannot be accepted. 10. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 33325/2000 was that the 4th respondent had issued a show cause notice and accordingly a reply was sent, but without considering the reply, prosecution steps had been initiated and the above procedure adopted was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Inspections were conducted in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court in O.P. 1520/1998. The notices were issued presumably for rectifying the defects and to comply with the statutory formalities. But replies were sent challenging the propriety of the provisions of the Act and the procedure adopted by the authorities. There was no necessity for giving any further reply to such objections. The object of issuing notice was to rectify the defects and when the employer had expressed his unwillingness to comply with the statutory formalities, no further reply was necessary and the procedure adopted by the Inspector was fully in accordance with law and there was no violation of any law, or the principles of natural justice. The complaints had been filed for the violation of Rules and no grounds could be established for quashing the above proceedings pending before the J.F.C.M.Court II, Cherthala. Hence all the OPs are liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result OPs 33325/2000, 35997/2000, 1363/2001 and 18916/2001 are dismissed.