High Court Kerala High Court

Mundakayam Medical Trust … vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mundakayam Medical Trust … vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20819 of 2010(B)


1. MUNDAKAYAM MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :09/07/2010

 O R D E R
                     P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                    ---------------------------
                         W.P(C) No.20819 of 2010-B
                   ----------------------------
                 Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010.

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

prayers:

writ,
Establishments Actthat
“i)declaring a1960 of mandamus or any other appropriate
Issue writ
the Kerala Shops & Commercial
is not applicable to Private Hospitals.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ restraining the 2nd respondent from initiating any action
against the petitioner under the Provisions of the Kerala Shops
and Commercial Establishments Act.

Court deemsTo in thesuch

iii) fitpass other orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble
interest of justice.

2. It appears that, the petitioner is more aggrieved of Ext.P2

dated 14.6.2010 issued by the second respondent. The intervention

is sought to be made with reference to Exts.P3 and P4 interim

orders passed by this Court; to have similar orders to be passed in

the present case as well.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is mainly with

regard to the dispute to have the petitioner’s establishment to be

covered under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act

W.P(C) No.20819 of 2010-B 2

1960 and the consequential liability if any, with regard to the

contribution to be effected to the welfare fund in respect of the

workers. Exts.P3 and P4 interim orders passed by this Court are

also in respect of cases, involving similar factual circumstances.

But, Ext.P2 notice has been issued by the second respondent in his

capacity as the concerned authority under the “Kerala Minimum

Wages Act” and the relevant rules. The notice has been issued

stating that, in spite of the fact that the petitioner establishment is a

notified establishment coming within the Schedule of the Kerala

Minimum Wages Act, it has been noted that the petitioner is

effecting only lesser wages to the employees concerned.

5. The pleadings and prayers moulded in the Writ Petition

do not reconcile with the contents of Ext.P2 notice. Hence

interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However,

this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in

challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P2 by raising

appropriate pleadings and prayers.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
ab