Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 331 (KER)

D. Rajeev v. Presiding Officer, Labor Court

2021-03-23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, K.BABU

body2021
JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(c) No.958/2021 has instituted this appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to challenge the judgment dated 14.1.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the said writ petition. 2. Heard Sri.Ashok B.Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the writ appeal/petitioner in the writ petition and Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyil, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/2nd respondent in the writ petition. Since the 1st respondent is a Labour Court concerned, notice to that party will stand dispensed with. 3. The 2nd respondent herein claims to be an employee of the appellant establishment, who is running an institute by name “Victory Health Inspector Training College” at Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District. The said establishment is an unaided educational institution conducting diploma course for Health Inspectors and that the 2nd respondent herein claims to be an Administrative Officer in the said establishment run by the appellant. The 2nd respondent herein has filed three sets of applications as per Exts.P1, P2 and P3 under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the 1st respondent Labour Court, Kollam, claiming payment of the delayed wages with compensation. The appellant has taken the objection before the Labour Court that the Labour Court is not a notified authority in terms of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and that therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter instituted by the 2nd respondent as per Exts.P1 to P3 applications. In that regard, it is specifically contended that the appropriate Government has issued notifications as per Exts.P4 and P5 in exercise of the powers under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages, 1936. Ext.P4 is the notification published in the Kerala Gazette on 12.8.1997, whereby, it is notified that the State Government have decided to appoint the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation in Kerala of the respective regions as the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 15(1) of the Kerala Payment of Wages Act mentioned in Schedule I of Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is the notification published in the Kerala Gazette on 12.8.1997, whereby, it is notified that the State Government have decided to appoint the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation in Kerala of the respective regions as the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 15(1) of the Kerala Payment of Wages Act mentioned in Schedule I of Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the subsequent notification issued by the State Government and published in the Gazette on 29.2.2020, whereby, it is ordered that in exercise of powers under Section 15 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act and in supersession of all previous notifications that henceforth the Industrial Tribunal of the region concerned specified in the schedule attached to Ext.P5 shall exercise the powers of the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. On this basis, the writ petitioner would contend that on and with effect from the issuance of Ext.P4 notification dated 12.8.1997 and Ext.P5 notification dated 29.2.2020, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act to adjudicate the claims under the said Act. Yet another contention has also been taken up by the writ petitioner is that it is an admitted case of the 2nd respondent that the writ petitioner is running an unaided educational institution and that the said establishment of the appellant will not satisfy the definition of an establishment as per the Payment of Wages Act. In that regard, the contention of the petitioner is to the effect that Payment of Wages Act will apply only to those establishments which would fulfill the requirements of either subsection (4) of Section (1) or Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5) of Section (1) of Payment of Wages Act and that in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 1(4) and Section 1(5) of Payment of Wages Act, an establishment should necessarily fulfill the definition of ‘industry’ or other establishment as defined in Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act. Further that a private unaided educational institution as run by the appellant would never fall within any of the entities described as Clause (a) to (h) of Section (2)(ii) of Payment of Wages Act. Hence, the said Act will not apply to the appellant's establishment going by the mandate contained in Sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section (1) of the said Act. 4. Hence, the said Act will not apply to the appellant's establishment going by the mandate contained in Sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section (1) of the said Act. 4. The Labour Court has overruled the said preliminary objection of the writ petitioner as per Ext.P8 order dated 16.12.2020 and has held that the objection of the petitioner based on Section 2(ii) of Payment of Wages Act could be raised later at the appropriate stage by the petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge has also repelled the contentions of the petitioner stating that it is for the petitioner to raise the said objections at the appropriate stage later. 6. We have heard both sides. 7. Whereas, Sri.Ashok B.Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would place reliance on the statutory notification issued in terms of Exts.P4 and P5 to contend that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to deal with a case under the Payment of Wages Act as in the present case. 8. Per contra, Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyath, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that the provisions made out as per Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) Rules would make it clear that the Labour Court will have the jurisdiction. 9. We would initially examine the provisions made out as per Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. The same is a copy of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Application to Scheduled Employment Rules, 1962 and Ext.R2(b) is a copy of the Kerala Payment of Wages (Procedure) Application to Scheduled Employment Rules, 1964. Both the said Rules have stated to be issued under Sections 15 & 26(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. The Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules 1937 framed under Payment of Wages Act, 1937, shall apply in relation to claims arising out of deductions from or delay in payment of the wages payable to employees in the scheduled employments mentioned in Parts I and II of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, for which the State Government is the appropriate Government under that Act, as they apply in relation to claims arising out of deductions from, or delay in payment of wages payable under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Ext.R2(b) is the corresponding notification issued by the State Government, wherein, it is stated that the Kerala Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rule, 1937 would apply in relation to claims arising out of deductions from or delay in payment of the wages payable to employees in the scheduled employments mentioned in Part I and Part II of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for which the State Government is the appropriate Government under that Act, as they apply in relation to claims arising out of deductions from, or delay in payment of wages payable under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A reading of Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) would make it clear that all what is stated therein is that the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 framed under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 would apply in a mutatis mutandis manner in terms of claims made under the Minimum Wages Act. More aspects relating to Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) will be dealt with in the later part of the judgment. The petitioner has also placed reliance on Ext.R2(c), which is a statutory notification dated 26.9.2011 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1)(a) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Central Act XI of 1948) r/w [Section 5(2) thereof]. The matters in relation to Ext.R2(c) notification would also be taken up at a later stage. 10. Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act deals with the authorities which were competent to adjudicate on the claims made under the Payment of Wages Act and Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows: “Sec.15. The matters in relation to Ext.R2(c) notification would also be taken up at a later stage. 10. Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act deals with the authorities which were competent to adjudicate on the claims made under the Payment of Wages Act and Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as follows: “Sec.15. Claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint - (a) any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; or (b) any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as,- (i) Regional Labour Commissioner : or (ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two year's experience; or (c) any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two year's experience: or (d) a presiding officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State; or (e) any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or a Judicial Magistrate; As the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims; PROVIDED that where the appropriate Government considers it necessary sought to do, it may appoint more than one authority for any specified area and may, by general or special order provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them under this Act.” 11. A mere reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act would make it clear that (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint -(a) any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; or (b) any officer of the Central Government exercising functions as,-(i) Regional Labour Commissioner : or (ii) Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two year's experience; or (c) any officer of the State Government not below the rank of Assistant Labour Commissioner with at least two year's experience: or (d) a presiding officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any corresponding law relating to the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State; or (e) any other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or a Judicial Magistrate; as the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims. Proviso to Section 15(1) would further stipulate that where the appropriate Government considers it necessary so to do, it may appoint more than one authority for any specified area and may, by general or special order provided for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them under this Act. 12. Now the only material placed before us is Exts.P4 and P5, which are issued under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. Ext.P4 is a statutory notification issued by the Government of Kerala published in the Gazette on 12.8.1997, whereby it is ordered that the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act thereby appoint Officers in the rank of Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation for the region concerned as notified in the said Schedule, to be the authorities to hear and decide the claims under Section 15(a) of the Payment of Wages Act. Ext.P4 notification dated 12.8.1997 reads as follows: (See page Nos.45 and 46 of the paper book of this appeal) “S.R.O No.634/97-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936(Central Act 4 of 1936). Ext.P4 notification dated 12.8.1997 reads as follows: (See page Nos.45 and 46 of the paper book of this appeal) “S.R.O No.634/97-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936(Central Act 4 of 1936). The Government of Kerala hereby appoint the officers mentioned in Column(2) of the Schedule below to be the Authorities to hear and decide for the areas specified against each in (Column 3), thereto, all claims arising out of deduction from the wages, or delay in payment of wages of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims. SCHEDULE Sl.No. Officers Revenue District (1) (2) (3) 1. Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram (Secretary, State Advisory Contract Labour Board, Thiruvananthapuram) Thiruvananthapuram and Pathanamthitta 2. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kollam Kollam and Alappuzha 3. -do-Kottayam Kottayam and Idukki 4. -do-Ernakulam Ernakulam 5. -do-Thrissur Thrissur and Palakkad 6. -do-Kozhikode Malappuram and Kozhikode 7. -do-Kannur Kannur and Wayanad 13. Later, Ext.P5 notification has been issued by the State Government as published in the Kerala Gazette on 29.2.2020 whereby, it is ordered that in supersession of the previous Ext.P4 notification published in Kerala Gazette dated 12.8.1997, the State Government thereby appoint the officers mentioned in the schedule thereto as the authorities to hear and decide the claims under the Payment of Wages Act for the areas specified in Column No. 3 of the said schedule. A reading of the said schedule would make it clear that the Industrial Tribunal of the respective regions mentioned therein had been notified as the exclusive authority to deal with the claims under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. A reading of the said schedule would make it clear that the Industrial Tribunal of the respective regions mentioned therein had been notified as the exclusive authority to deal with the claims under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. Ext.P5 notification published in the gazette dated 29.2.2020 reads as follows: (See page Nos.47 and 48 of the paper book of this appeal) “In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Central Act 4 of 1936) and in supersession of G.O(RT) No.2183/97/LBR dated 29th July, 1997 and published as S.R.O No.634/97 in Kerala Gazette extraordinary No.1101 dated 12th August, 1997 and all previous notification on the subject, the Government of Kerala hereby appoint the officers mentioned in Column (2) of the schedule below to the Authorities to hear and decide for the areas specified against each in Column (3) thereto all claims arising out of deduction from the wages, or delay in the payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters incidental to such claims. SCHEDULE Sl.No. Designation of officers with headquarters Areas 1 2 3 1 Industrial Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District of Thiruvananthapuram 2. Industrial Tribunal, Kollam Revenue District of Kollam and Pathanamthitta 3. Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha Revenue District of Alappuzha and Ernakulam 4. Industrial Tribunal, Thrissur Revenue District of Thrissur 5. Industrial Tribunal, Idukki (Peermedu) Revenue District of Kottayam and Idukki 6. Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad Revenue District of Palakkad and Malappuram 7. Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode Revenue District of Kozhikode, Wyanad, Kannur and Kasaragod. 14. The 2nd respondent has not made available any notifications issued under Section 15(a) of the Payment of Wages Act and the sole contention of the 2nd respondent is on the basis of Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) notifications mentioned herein above. A reading of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act would make it clear that the authorities to hear and decide the claims under the said Act is to be notified by the State Government and the authorities, if so chosen in the notifications are enumerated in various clauses in Section 15(1) of the said Act. True that the Labour Court is also one of the authorities mentioned therein. True that the Labour Court is also one of the authorities mentioned therein. But the jurisdiction will be conferred only if the appropriate Government issues a specific statutory notification in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, conferring the jurisdiction on the authorities envisaged in terms of the various clauses in Section 15(1) of the Act. It is seen that on and with effect from Ext.P4 notification published in the gazette on 12.8.1997 the adjudicating authority was an officer of the rank of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation of the region concerned. Later Ext.P4 notification has been superseded and Ext.P5 notification has been issued as published in the gazette on 29.2.2020, whereby thenceforth the sole authority is the Industrial Tribunal of the region concerned. Hence it can be seen that the Labour Court has not been notified as an authority to decide claims in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act, after the issuance of Exts.P4 and P5. We need not get into the issue as to what was the legal position prior to the issuance of Ext.P4. This is for the simple reason that Exts.P1 to P3 applications have been preferred by the 2nd respondent on 5.5.2016, 25.6.2017 and 25.06.2017 respectively. At the time of submission of Exts.P1 to P3 applications, Ext.P4 notification was in vogue and Ext.P5 notification has been published in the gazette only on 29.2.2020. So, at the time of submission of Exts.P1 to P3 applications the sole authority to decide on claims under the Payment of Wages Act was the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Tribunal and not the Labour Court. 15. The 2nd respondent would strongly contend that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction in view of the issuance of Ext.R2(a) and R2(b) Rules. As noted hereinabove, Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) Rules herein had been issued by the Central Government and State Government respectively, notifying that the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules shall apply in a mutatis mutandis manner in claims under the Minimum Wage Act. We have also perused the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, framed by the Central Government and as well as the Kerala Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules 1958 framed by the State Government in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Payment of Wages Act. We have also perused the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, framed by the Central Government and as well as the Kerala Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules 1958 framed by the State Government in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Payment of Wages Act. Those rules deal with the form of application, authorisation, permission to appear, presentation of documents, refusal to entertain application, appearance of parties, record of proceedings, signature on forms, excise of powers, etc. Nowhere in the said Rules mentioned as to which is the authority who is to consider and decide claims as envisaged under Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. In other words, the said procedure rules only deal with the procedure to be adopted before the notified adjudicatory authority concerned. The sum and substance of Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) Rules is that the procedure rules as it applies to the claims under the Payment of Wages Act shall in a manner broadly akin to mutatis mutandis manner would apply in relation to the claims under the Minimum Wages Act. The said Rules as per Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) do not even remotely contemplate about conferral of jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 15(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. Hence the reliance made by the 2nd respondent on Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) Rules is not relevant or germane for the issue. No other notification superseding Exts.P4 and P5 has been brought to our notice by both sides. Hence on the basis of the available materials on record, we are of the firm view that the Labour Court did not have any jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act at the time of institution of Exts.P1 to P3 applications. 16. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. 17. As regards the second objection raised by the petitioner the followings aspects would be relevant: It is common ground that the appellant is running a Private Unaided Educational Institution by name 'Victory Health Inspector Training College', which is conducting diploma course for Health Inspector. The 2nd respondent has placed reliance on Ext.R2(c) notification published in the Gazette on 26.9.2011. 17. As regards the second objection raised by the petitioner the followings aspects would be relevant: It is common ground that the appellant is running a Private Unaided Educational Institution by name 'Victory Health Inspector Training College', which is conducting diploma course for Health Inspector. The 2nd respondent has placed reliance on Ext.R2(c) notification published in the Gazette on 26.9.2011. It is the only notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act and it notifies the minimum wages payable to non teaching staff of private educational institutions. Therefore, Annexure R2(c) may not have any relevance on the second objection of the writ petitioner that the Payment of Wages Act will not apply to the appellant's establishment. 18. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act read as follows: “Sec.1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.-(1) This Act may be called the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.-(1).... xxx xxx xxx (4) It applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any [factory, to persons] employed (otherwise than in a factory) upon any railway by a railway administration or, either directly or through a sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration [and to persons employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of section 2. (5) Appropriate Government may, after giving three months’ notice of its intention of so doing, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act or any of them to the payment of wages to any class of persons employed in any establishment or class of establishments specified by the appropriate Government under subclause (h) of clause (ii) of section 2: PROVIDED that in relation to any such establishment owned by the Central Government, no such notification shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.” 19. The 2nd respondent does not have any case that the appellant's establishment, which is a private unaided educational institution, is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act or that any of the components of railway establishment is applicable in the instant case. The 2nd respondent does not have any case that the appellant's establishment, which is a private unaided educational institution, is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act or that any of the components of railway establishment is applicable in the instant case. Hence the only issue to be examined is as to whether the appellant's establishment is an industrial or other establishment as prescribed in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section (2)(ii) or in terms of Clause (h) of Section 2(ii) of Payment of Wages Act. Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act deals with definition of industrial or other establishment, which reads as follows: “(ii) “ Industrial or other establishment” means any— (a) tramway service, or motor transport service engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward; (aa) air transport service other than such service belonging to, or exclusively employed in the military, naval or air forces of the Union or the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India; (b) dock, wharf or jetty; (c) inland vessel, mechanically propelled; (d) mine, quarry or oil-field; (e) plantation; (f) workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view to their use, transport or sale; (g) establishment in which any work relating to the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or to the supply of water or relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on; [(h) any other establishment or class of establishments which the appropriate Government may, having regard to the nature thereof, the need for protection of persons employed therein and other relevant circumstances, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette;” 20. The 2nd respondent does not have any case that the private unaided educational institution run by the appellant would fulfill any of the items in Clause (a) to (g) of Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act. So, the only the issue is as to whether the appellant's establishment would fulfill the definition of Clause (h) of Section 2(ii). The 2nd respondent does not have any case that the private unaided educational institution run by the appellant would fulfill any of the items in Clause (a) to (g) of Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act. So, the only the issue is as to whether the appellant's establishment would fulfill the definition of Clause (h) of Section 2(ii). In order to attract Clause (h) of Section (2)(ii), the establishment should be any other establishment or class of establishments which the appropriate Government may having regard to the nature thereof, the need for protection of persons employed therein and other relevant circumstances, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the appropriate Government will have to issue a statutory notification in terms of Clause (h) of Section 2(ii) notifying that a private educational institution should be treated as other establishment within the meaning of Clause (h) of Section 2(ii). The 2nd respondent has no case that any such notification has been issued by the appropriate Government bringing a private educational institution within the hold of Clause (h) of Section 2(ii). However, we need not finally decide the said issue in this case as the claim under the Payment of Wages Act would be maintainable only if it is filed before the notified adjudicatory authority, notified in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act. 21. Since the claim is for wages made by an employee, we had also sought clarifications from both sides as to what could be the appropriate remedy in a case like this. We are told that a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be made before the Labour Court concerned, provided the establishment would fulfill the definition of “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employee should fulfill the definition of “workman” as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If these jurisdictional parameters are satisfied, then a workman will be entitled to make claims for wages under Section 33-C(2) before the Labour Court concerned, in respect of any statutory claim of wages or for any claims of wages regulated by the terms and conditions of the contract for personal service. If these jurisdictional parameters are satisfied, then a workman will be entitled to make claims for wages under Section 33-C(2) before the Labour Court concerned, in respect of any statutory claim of wages or for any claims of wages regulated by the terms and conditions of the contract for personal service. In that regard, we would only note the submission made by Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant that going by the admitted claims of the 2nd respondent, as made out as per Exts.P1 to P3, her case is that she is entitled for salary or remuneration of more than the threshold limit of Rs.10,000/- per month and that she claims that she has been appointed as Administrative Officer in the appellant's establishment, etc. In that regard, it may be pertinent to refer to Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows: “33-C : Recovery of money due from an employer:- xxxx xxx xxx (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months. Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.” 22. From a reading of the definition of workmen as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, it can be seen that a person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity is excluded therefrom and so also a person being employed in supervisory capacity, who draws wages exceeding Rs.10,000/-per month or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature etc. will also stand excluded therefrom. will also stand excluded therefrom. Therefore, it is for the 2nd respondent to ascertain these aspects of the matter as to whether the claims would lie under Section 33-C(2) before the Labour Court concerned. 23. Annexure R2(c) is a notification issued by the State Government under Section 3(1)(a) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act and therein it is notified that fixing the minimum wages payable to the non teaching staff of Private Educational Institutions in terms of schedule attached thereto. We make it clear that if the claims of the 2nd respondent are mainly in relation to the minimum wages notified in terms of Minimum Wages Act, then it goes without saying, that the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to make claims before the notified authority in terms of the Minimum Wages Act for adjudication of any such claims. 24. We are told that in terms of the notification now governing the field issued in terms of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, the notified authority in that regard is an officer of the rank of Deputy Labour Commissioner. These are all aspects to be verified and ascertained by the parties concerned. 25. In the light of these aspects, we are of the firm view that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide on the claims in terms of Exts.P1 and P3 as per the provisions contained in Section 15(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. In that view of the matter, it is ordered and declared that Ext.P8 will stand set aside. Consequently, it is also ordered that the impugned judgment dated 14.1.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.958/2021 will also stand set aside. We make it clear that this judgment will not in any manner preclude the 2nd respondent for approaching the proper forum for adjudication of her claims in accordance with law and in that regard, all contentions available to both sides are left open to be raised and decided in appropriate proceedings in the manner known law. All what we have done is that the Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Exts.P1 to P3 applications in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. 26. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court, Kollam for necessary information. All what we have done is that the Labour Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Exts.P1 to P3 applications in terms of Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. 26. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court, Kollam for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the writ appeal will stand disposed of.