2025:KER:26195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12476 OF 2025 PETITIONER: KANIMANGALAM CONSUMER'S CO-OPERATIVE STORE LTD. NO.447 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANIMANGALAM, KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR., PIN – 680 007. BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA N.S.SHAMILA CHINJU P. JOYIES RESPONDENT S : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695 001. 2 DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER & MINIMUM WAGES AUTHORITY,V CORPORATION BUILDING, UDAYA NAGAR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR., PIN – 680 020. 3 JOLY SHAJU PONDHAKKAN HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM.P.O., THRISSUR., PIN – 680 007. BY ADV. SHEEJA C.S, SENIOR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.12476 OF 2025 : 2 : 2025:KER:26195 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The 3rd respondent was an employee working in Neethi Medical Shop run by the Society. Claiming difference between wages actually paid and wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short, ‘Act’) the 3rd respondent filed Ext.P5 application before the 2nd respondent, the authority acting under Section 20 of the Act. Pursuant to Ext.P6 summons issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner entered appearance. However, no written statement was filed. The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P7 order granting an amount of Rs.57,230/- being the difference in minimum wages payable to the 3rd respondent. Challenging Ext.P7, WP(C) NO.12476 OF 2025 : 3 : 2025:KER:26195 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that Ext.P7 order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to contest the claim. It is stated that no opportunity was granted to file counter affidavit and none of the arguments of the petitioner was considered while passing Ext.P7. 3. Heard Adv. Lindons C. Davis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P7 order, it can be seen that on receipt of summons, the petitioner entered appearance before the 2nd respondent and contested the claim. The petitioner admitted before the 2nd WP(C) NO.12476 OF 2025 : 4 : 2025:KER:26195 respondent that the 3rd respondent was an employee in the Neethi Medical shop run by the petitioner. However, the contention of the 3rd respondent that she was working as a Pharmacist was denied. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was working only as a general worker assisting the Pharmacist and Sales Assistant. Ext.P7 would show that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to contest the claim before the 2nd respondent. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for a remand of the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent. It is to be noted that the amount WP(C) NO.12476 OF 2025 : 5 : 2025:KER:26195 ordered to be paid to the 3rd respondent towards difference in minimum wages is only Rs.57,230/-. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is a general worker. She can ill afford to defend the matter before this Court and a second round of litigation before the 2nd respondent. The object of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is to provide for fixing minimum rate of wages to workmen employed in scheduled employments. It is a labour welfare legislation. The petitioner being a Co-operative Society, the provisions of the Act are applicable to it. The 2nd respondent has resolved the dispute based on the materials before it. Though the petitioner had sufficient time to file counter affidavit, no counter WP(C) NO.12476 OF 2025 : 6 : 2025:KER:26195 affidavit was filed. Analyzing Ext.P7 order in the light of the objective of the Act, I do not find any reason to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ WP(C) NO.12476 OF 2025 : 7 : 2025:KER:26195 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12476/2025 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.10.2023 FROM AUDIT TEAM 29 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AUDIT), THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2024 SEEKING THE EXPLANATION FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.10.2024 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MINUTES BOOK RECORDING THE DECISIONS ON 29.10.2024 TO RECOVER THE SHORTAGE AMOUNT FROM THE EMPLOYEES. EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2024 CLAIMING DIFFERENCE OF MINIMUM WAGES. EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 09.12.2024 FOR APPEARANCE ON 24.12.2024. EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER IN MWA 30/2024 DATED 03.02.2025. EXHIBIT P8 A COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A3-MWA 30/2024 DATED 15.02.2025.