AIRFREIGHT LTD. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
forwarding of cargo, courier, travel, tourism and related services. It had A , several offices in various places. The respondent-employees sought variable dearness allowance (VDA) on the basis of Notification issued by the State Government on 19.8.87 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees of "shops and commercial establishments". The Competent Authority allowed the claim of the employees B and also directed the appellant-company to pay compensation under the Act. The company challenged the order in a Writ Petition before the High Court contending that the notification was not applicable to it since it was not a "shop or commercial establishment". Single Judge of the High Court ~ismissed the writ petition and a Division bench confirmed the order. However, that part of the order that directed payment of compensation was set aside. C In appeal before this Court it was contended by the appellant-company that it was not covered by the term "shops and commercial establishments" and hence, the notification fixing minimum wages was not applicable to it. It was also contended that since the appellant was paying a total pay packet that is more than the minimum wages, though the wages were not being bifurcated into basic wages and dearness allowance, the notification was not ' applicable to it. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the notification fixed minimum wages in two parts, separately, one basic wages and the other VDA and hence, the company was liable to pay VDA in addition to the wages being paid. D E Partly allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Competent Authority, this Court HELD: 1.1; The appellant-company is covered by the expression "shops and commercial establishments", as understood in the ordinary common parlance. It is carrying out various systematic commercial activities with profit motive and hence, is a commercial establishment. It can also be termed as a shop since services are sold on retail basis. It is a "commercial establishment" and also a "shop" under Section 2(e) and 2(u), respectively, of the Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. F G (26-F-G; 27-E-F)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Minimum Wages Act — s. 27; Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961; Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; Mysore Shops and Commercial Establishments F Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Supreme Court of India, on 16 Oct 1998. The bench was D P WADHWA, M B SHAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.