Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1497 of 2007
PETITIONER:
SECRETARY PADIPPU K.S.SANGAM LTD
RESPONDENT:
C. VARGHESE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/03/2007
BENCH:
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & ALTAMAS KABIR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.7380 of 2006)
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Heard Mr.T.L.V.Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
dt.24.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1578 of
2004.
The only question arises for our consideration in this appeal is
whether the appellant-society is engaged in ‘dairy farming’.
The appellant is a co-operative Society registered under the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and engaged in the collection of milk from
its members and distribution thereof. The respondent herein is a milk user
in the appellant-society whose work, according to the appellant, is mainly
between 6.30 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. on all days. As per the settlement arrived
at before the District Labour Officer Kasergod on September 20, 1990, the
respondent was being paid a consolidated pay of Rs.350/- per month from
April 1, 1990. The Assistant Labour Officer, Kasergod also informed the
appellant on 25.03.1998 that the milk producing in co-operative Societies
had not been included under the Minimum Wages Act by any Notification
and that there was no orders fixing minimum wages for employees of such
society.
In the meanwhile, the respondent filed an application before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner claiming payment of minimum wages under
the Minimum Wages Act for the period 01.01.1993 to 31.12.1994 as if the
said Act was applicable to co-operative Societies engaged in mere
purchase of milk from members and distribution thereof. The application
was allowed despite appellant’s contest. The appellant challenged the
decision before the High Court in writ proceedings contending that the
employment in the Society was not a scheduled employment under the Act
and, therefore, the second respondent was not competent to pass such an
order for payment of minimum wages under the Act.
The learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court accepted the
contention and after a detailed reasoning held that the Act was not
applicable to the employment in question which applied, inter alia, only to
‘dairy farming’. This judgment has, however, been reversed by the Division
Bench of the High Court with a view that even distribution of milk by a
Society like the appellant will attract the provisions of the Act.
We have heard extensive arguments advanced by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-
workman. In our view, the impact of the order passed by the Division
Bench on the appellant is very serious. Admittedly, the first respondent
was employed only as a milk tester. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant-society is engaged in purchasing milk from its members and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
distributing it. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-society does not
own cattle milch and they buy milk for the purpose of production of milk
and ‘dairy farming’. The contention of Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillai, learned
counsel for the respondent, is that the sale of milk does form part of the
process of the production of milk which constitute ‘dairy farming’. We are
unable to countenance the said submission because it is only a part of the
process of distribution of milk. In our view, the mere activity of buying
milk from its members and distributing it will not constitute ‘dairy farming’
when there is no rearing of milch cows and no agriculture or farming
activity is carried on by the Society. The High Court, in our opinion, ought
to have held that the appellant-society which merely collects milk from its
members and distributes is not engaged in any employment scheduled
under the Act. This apart, the respondent’s claim that it falls within the
purview of ‘dairy farming’ in Schedule II cannot also be accepted and we
are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondent and the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High
Court. We are, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and
allow the appeal filed by the appellant-society.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent was paid
some salary including minimum wages. We make it clear that the amount
which has already been paid shall not be recovered from the respondent.
The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
No costs.