Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and MP.No.1 of 2011 P.R.Krishnakumar, Employer, Saranya Multi Speciality Ayurvedic Hospital, Mavuthampathy, Navakkarai Village, Coimbatore - 641 105. ...Petitioner Vs.
1. Authority Appointed under the Minimum Wages Act / Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore.
2. Assistant Inspector of Labour, 4th Circle, Coimbatore - 641 018.
3. M.Suresh
4. P.Suresh
5. B.Maheswari
6. S.K.Manimaran (R3 to R6 are impleaded as per order dated 27.04.2018 made in WMP.No.12457 of 18 in W.P.No.24523 of 2011.) ...Respondents
Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 26.05.2010 of the 1st Respondent herein passed in M.W. Act Case No.111 of 2009 and quash the said impugned order. For Petitioner : Mrs.Lakshmi Priya for M/s.Gupta & Ravi For Respondents : Mr.E.Sundaram, for R2 : No Appearance, for R1
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the order of the 1st respondent dated 26.05.2010 made in M.W. Act Case No.111 of 2009.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner hospital is an
Ayurvedic Hospital and the said hospital is situated at remote place in Coimbatore and in the said hospital, only Ayurvedic treatment was given. According to the petitioner, only when it is absolutely necessary, the Doctors and Physiotherapists visit the hospital to treat specific patients. Otherwise, the patient come there for rest and rejuvenation. The Government issued G.O.No.2(D) 27, Labour and Employment (J) dated
24.05.2004 prescribing the minimum wages for different categories of employees and the employees like nursing orderlies are placed in class 8 along with the house keeper, driver and watchman. While the Government order prescribed only Rs.3,021.40/-, the petitioner was already paying monthly wages ranging from Rs.3,200/- to Rs.3,700/- for Class VIII employees. According to the petitioner, since the hospital was located in a remote area, the nursing orderlies were given accommodation and food was arranged from private catering contractors and every month, a particular sum was deducted from the salary of individual orderlies proportionate to the food usage. While such being the case, the 2nd respondent inspected the petitioner hospital by exercising its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and not under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the 2nd respondent interacted with few employees and prepared a report stating that they were working as physiotherapists and that they were paid salary much lower than the minimum wages fixed by the Government and based on the said report, the 2nd respondent filed M.W. Act case No.111 of 2009 under Section 20(2) of the Minimum wages Act before the 1st respondent purporting it to have been filed on behalf of the employees of the hospital, alleging that the hospital paid
sixteen of its employees less than the minimum wages fixed by the Government and claimed the alleged difference between the minimum wages and the actual wages paid to them. The 1st respondent took the case on file and on behalf of the 2nd respondent, one witness was examined and two documents were marked and on the side of the petitioner, 2 witnesses were examined and one document was marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the 1 st respondent concluded that the petitioner had underpaid his employees and directed the petitioner to pay the difference of wages within a period of 30 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the
impugned order, more specifically, the evidence let in on the side of the 2nd respondent to show that the officer who actually inspected the hospital premises was one Rajagopal. However, the witness who entered into box and deposed on behalf of the 2nd respondent was one Ramaraj
and there is absolutely no explanation given on the side of the 2nd respondent as to why the said Rajagopal was not examined. Moreover, the report prepared by the 2nd respondent was only under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and not under Minimum Wages Act. Further, the 2nd respondent had not demanded and verified or inspected the Register of wages maintained by the petitioner, rather, the 2 nd respondent has only asked for Register relating to holidays and the petitioner had fairly admitted that such Registers were not maintained by them. Learned counsel further submitted that the inspection was only a casual one and not based on any complaint by any of the workers. Further, the sixteen workers referred to in the report were only working as nursing orderlies and they never claimed themselves to be Physiotherapists.
5. This Court is convinced with the said argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Further, this Court has also perused the evidence let in on the side of the petitioner. RW1 is the Administrator of the petitioner hospital and RW2 is the attender working in the hospital, who in his evidence has categorically stated that he has studied only upto 8th standard and was working as an Attender and even in the report
prepared by the 2nd respondent, the occupation of RW2 is only shown as attender.
6. Further, the reason why the officer Rajagopal who has actually
inspected the petitioner hospital was not examined before the 1st respondent is not convincingly put forth before this Court. The petitioner has fairly admitted that it is only an Ayurvedic Hospital and people got admitted there for taking rest and rejuvenation. In Ayurvedic hospital, it is common knowledge that therapies like oil massages are usually given. This is akin to massage therapists at tourist places like Coutralam and they cannot be equated with or called physiotherapists. The 1st respondent should have taken into consideration the categorical evidence of RW2, who has stated that he is not a qualified physiotherapist and he was only working as an attender. The 1st respondent has grossly erred in directing the petitioner to pay the difference in salary to the sixteen alleged physiotherapists. The entire report submitted by the 2nd respondent is sham and the 1st respondent ought not to have entertained the very case filed by the 2nd respondent and necessarily, the order impugned in this Writ petition has to be set aside.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ petition stands allowed and
the impugned order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the 1st respondent in M.W. Act Case No.111 of 2009 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.02.2025 skt NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No To
1. Authority Appointed under the Minimum Wages Act / Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore.
2. Assistant Inspector of Labour, 4th Circle, Coimbatore - 641 018.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt and MP.No.1 of 2011 03.02.2025