P.V. Balakrishnan, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C)No.38510/2024 challenging the judgment dated 19.05.2025 dismissing the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P4 and P5 and quashing the same.

                  ii)       issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner Corporation is not liable to pay any amount as arrears of minimum wages as directed in Ext.P4 order.

                  iii)       issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner Corporation is not liable to pay any amount as compensation as directed in Ext.P4 order.

                  iv)      issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to stop all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5.”

3. The appellant is a company fully owned and controlled by the Government of Kerala. The appellant runs 278 FL-1 Outlets in State of Kerala. While so, the 2nd respondent preferred a complaint under Section 29(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), claiming that minimum wages for the period from November 2014 to April 2015 was not paid to the third respondent, who was an employee of the shop and that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,880/- as arrears of minimum wages. As per the claim petition, the Corporation, being an establishment scheduled under the Act, is governed by the provisions of the Act and, since the third respondent has worked for more than 4 hours in a day during the said period, he is entitled for the minimum wages. The afore complaint was filed on the basis of Annexure A1 inspection report of the 2nd respondent.

4. On receipt of notice, the appellant filed a written statement contending that cleaning staffs were engaged as per Ext.P3 order only for one hour daily and that minimum wages were paid to them as per Exts.P1 and P2.

5. The first respondent, after considering the materials on record, issued Ext.P4 order dated 18.6.2024 holding that the appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,640/- as arrears of minimum wages for the period from November 2014 to April 2015 and also a sum of Rs.5160/- as compensation to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice directing the appellant to remit the amount within seven days. It is in such circumstances, the appellant filed this writ petition seeking the afore reliefs.

6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

7. Heard Adv.Naveen T, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv.Thulasi K.Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent and Adv.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.P4 order has been passed by the first respondent without any materials. He submitted that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the third respondent has worked for the duration as claimed. He submitted that as per Ext.P3 order, sweepers are and, can be engaged by the appellant Corporation only for one hour a day and that the minimum wages, as specified in Exts.P1 and P2 have already been paid to the third respondent for this period.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondent submitted that Ext.P4 decision has been rendered by the first respondent on the basis of the materials available before him. She argued that the complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent on the basis of Annexure A1 inspection report filed by him and it would clearly show that the appellant was not even maintaining wage register, service records, job register, etc., as stipulated by the statute. She further contended that Ext.P3 has not yet been implemented by the appellant Corporation and it has not produced any material to substantiate its contention that the 3rd respondent was engaged only for one hour daily. She submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly found that the disputed questions of fact cannot be examined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, we are of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is to be taken note that the appellant is not disputing the fact that the third respondent was engaged by it in a FL-1 shop. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent has conducted an inspection in the shop, wherein the third respondent was working, and has filed Annexure A1 report. Annexure A1 report would show that at the time of inspection, the appellant was not even maintaining wage register, job registers, service records, etc., as required by law and that the establishment was not registered. Even though the appellant has contended that as per Ext.P3, sweepers have been engaged by it only for an hour daily, no materials have been produced to substantiate the same. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was not even able to produce the appointment order, and vouchers evidencing payments to the 3rd respondent even at least for the period prior to the inspection. In short, the appellant has totally failed to substantiate any of the contentions raised by it in the writ petition. That apart, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the question whether the third respondent had worked only for one hour or for a longer duration is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstance, we do not find any reason to take a different conclusion than as reached by the learned Single Judge.

                  Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.