Telangana High Court
The Secretary vs Chikuri Ramachandraiah on 20 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Writ Appeal No.371 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. G.Narayana, learned Standing Counsel
for service matters of Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation (GHMC) & Agricultural Market Committee
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Prabhakar
Bommagani, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘the petitioner’).
2. Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No.35784 of
2014, who is the Secretary of Marketing Committee,
Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, is the appellant herein
(hereinafter referred as ‘respondent No.6’).
3. By the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, in
W.P.No.35784 of 2014, learned writ court, while refusing
to entertain the petitioner’s plea for regularization of his
::2::
services as Electrician, held that he is entitled to wages
applicable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the
period for which he rendered services as Electrician.
4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had
assailed the action of the respondents, in not allowing him
to attend to his duty as Electrician without any notice, and
also in not regularizing his services on the ground that he
had completed fourteen years of service from the date of
his engagement as such. Petitioner had also sought for a
direction to the respondents to pay the differential amount
of salary under the Minimum Wages Act, from the date of
his appointment.
5. Petitioner relied upon resolution dated 13.05.2003,
of the Marketing Committee by which his remuneration
was enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- and thereafter,
there was no enhancement. According to the petitioner,
::3::
as per notification dated 24.11.2011, skilled workmen in
the category of electrician were entitled to minimum wages
of Rs.350/- per day, which comes to Rs.9,113/- per
month and as he discharged his services as Electrician for
eight hours per day, he was entitled for minimum wages.
6. The stand of the petitioner was contested by
respondent No.6-Marketing Committee.
7. Learned writ court, however, did not grant the relief
of regularisation of service by taking note that there was
no post of Electrician in respondent No.6-Marketing
Committee. Learned writ court has proceeded to observe
that remuneration of Rs.1,500/- even as a daily wager is
less than the minimum wages as prescribed under the
::4::
8. We have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties.
9. At this stage, we may carefully take note of the
provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, which prescribe
the payment of wages.
10. Section 12 mandates payment of minimum wages, at
a rate not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by
the notification under Section 5, for that class of
employees engaged in a scheduled employment, without
any deductions, except as may be authorized, within such
time and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed.
11. Section 15 prescribes payment of wages to workers,
who work for less than normal working day. It stipulates
that if an employee has been engaged for a period less
than the requisite number of hours constituting a normal
::5::
working day, he shall be entitled to receive wages in
respect of work done by him on that day, as if he had
worked for a full normal working day. However, as per the
proviso, the employee shall not be entitled to receive
wages for a full normal working day either in case of his
failure to work due to unwillingness or such other cases
and circumstances as may be prescribed.
12. Section 17 stipulates payment of minimum time rate
wages for piece work. It clarifies that where an employee,
employed on piece work, for which minimum time rate,
and not a minimum piece rate, has been fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act, shall be entitled to wages not less
than the minimum time rate.
13. As per Section 18, every employer has to maintain
registers and records giving such particulars of employees
employed by him, the work performed by them, the wages
::6::
paid to them, the receipts given by them and such other
particulars, and in such form as may be prescribed. The
notices in the prescribed form containing the particulars of
the employees have to be exhibited in such manner as may
be prescribed in the factory or workplace.
14. Section 20 provides for determination of claims
made by employees and the same is extracted hereunder:
“Claims.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation or any officer
of the Central Government exercising functions as a
Labour Commissioner for any region, or any officer of the
State Government not below the rank of Labour
Commissioner or any other officer with experience as a
Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be
the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all
claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum
rates of wages or in respect of the payment of remuneration
for days of rest or for work done on such days under clause
(b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13 or of wages
::7::
at the overtime rate under section 14 to employees
employed or paid in that area.
(2) Where an employee has any claim of the nature referred
to in sub-section (1) the employee himself, or any legal
practitioner or any official of a registered trade union
authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector,
or any person acting with the permission of the Authority
appointed under subsection (1), may apply to such
Authority for a direction under sub-section (3):
Provided that every such application shall be presented
within six months from the date on which the minimum
wages or other amount became payable:
Provided further that any application may be admitted
after the said period of six months when the applicant
satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for
not making the application within such period.
(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is
entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and the
employer, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and
after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider
necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to
which the employer may be liable under this Act, direct-
(i) in the case of a claim arising out of payment of less
than the minimum rates of wages, the payment to the
employee of the amount by which the minimum wages
payable to him exceed the amount actually paid, together
::8::
with the payment of such compensation as the Authority
may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount of
such excess;
(ii) in any other case, the payment of the amount due to
the employee, together with the payment of such
compensation as the Authority may think fit, not
exceeding ten rupees,
and the Authority may direct payment of such
compensation in cases where the excess or the amount due
is paid by the employer to the employee before the disposal
of the application.
(4) If the Authority hearing any application under this
section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious,
it may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be
paid to the employer by the person presenting the
application.
(5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may
be recovered-
(a) if the Authority is a Magistrate, by the Authority as if
it were a fine imposed by the Authority as a Magistrate,
or
(b) if the Authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate
to whom the Authority makes application in this behalf,
as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate.
(6) Every direction of the Authority under this section shall
be final.
::9::
(7) Every Authority appointed under sub-section (1) shall
have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking
evidence and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and
compelling the production of documents, and every such
Authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the
purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898).”
15. An employee is supposed to file an application
within six months from the date on which the minimum
wages became payable. If such application is filed beyond
six months, the employee has to satisfy the authority that
he has sufficient cause for not making application within
such period.
16. The authority, declared by the appropriate
Government by notification in the Official Gazette, shall,
after hearing the employee and the employer, or after
giving them an opportunity of being heard and after such
further inquiry, direct- firstly, in case of a claim arising out
::10::
of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages, the
payment to the employee of the amount, by which the
minimum wages payable to him exceed the amount
actually paid together with the compensation as the
authority may deem fit, not exceeding ten times the
amount of such excess; Secondly in any other case, the
payment of the amount due to the employee, together
with the payment of such compensation as the Authority
may think fit, not exceeding ten rupees. Accordingly, the
authority may direct payment of such compensation in
cases where the excess or the amount due is paid by the
employer to the employee before the disposal of the
application. This is apart from any penalty, which the
employer is liable to face under the Minimum Wages Act.
For vexatious or malicious claims, a penalty can also be
imposed against the employee. In order to carry out such
function, such authority is conferred with the powers of
::11::
the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
for the purpose of taking evidence and enforcing the
attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of
documents.
17. Reference to the aforesaid provision is only for the
purpose to indicate that claims relating to minimum wages
are to be determined as per the procedure and before the
forum prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. For
determination of such a claim, the relevant records, which
the employer is required to maintain in respect of such
employees, are also to be inquired into by the appropriate
authority.
18. The learned writ court, however, proceeded to hold
that the petitioner is entitled to wages applicable under the
Minimum Wages Act for the period he rendered service as
Electrician without any determination as to the total
::12::
period of his engagement or the quantum of wages, less
than the minimum wages, he might have been paid during
that period. Apparently, the writ court was precluded
from making such determination in the absence of
sufficient pleadings and supporting documents placed
before it. Respondent No.6 being the employer would be
at a loss to calculate the total period for payment of wages
as there is no determination at that point. If the petitioner
had been paid less than the minimum wages over a period
of time, the issue could have been raised before the
appropriate forum at the relevant point of time. Writ
Petition has remained pending since 2014 till the
impugned order was passed on 14.10.2024. Minimum
Wages Act being a beneficial legislation, it has to be
interpreted in a manner which serves the object and the
purpose for which it is enacted for the class of
beneficiaries i.e., the workman in question. However,
::13::
whether the petitioner was paid minimum wages, and if
not, what were the quantum of wages paid, less than the
minimum wages prescribed, are issues, which could only
be determined by the competent authority notified by the
appropriate Government, which, in the instant case, is the
State Government.
19. Since disputed questions of fact are involved in the
present case, the writ jurisdiction was not the proper
remedy to address the grievances of the petitioner.
Learned writ court, however, proceeded to entertain the
plea of minimum wages without supporting pleadings and
documents on record despite availability of an alternative
remedy provided by the Statute i.e., the Minimum Wages
Act.
::14::
20. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the
impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.35784
of 2014.
21. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority
notified under the Minimum Wages Act, in respect of his
claim with due particulars and supporting documents,
within a period of four weeks from today.
22. In case the petitioner approaches the competent
authority within the above stipulated time, learned
authority would consider the application in accordance
with law after due notices to the employer and employee,
as are contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act. Let
such proceedings be concluded in a time bound manner,
preferably, within four months from the date of receipt of
such application along with a copy of this order.
::15::
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned direction of
the learned writ court is set aside. However, it would be
open for the petitioner to raise all issues, as are permissible
under law, before the competent authority.
24. The instant Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
stand closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
___________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 20.08.2025
LUR