Judgment

SAWANT, J. - Leave granted.

The appellant-Company runs a unit known as Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company at Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. At the relevant time, there were about 350 workmen working in this unit. On December 19, 1990, there was a dispute between the management and the trade union leaders which resulted in two cross First Information Reports being lodged by the management and the trade union leaders against each other and suspension of 30 workmen from service. According to the Company, from December 21, 1990 the workmen came to the Companys premises but did not discharge their duties. On account of this, there was a complete halt in production. According to the respondent-trade unions, however, the workmen reported for duty regularly but the production could not be carried on as the suspended 30 workmen were technicians and in their absence it was not possible to operate the machines. On December 27, 1990 an agreement was arrived at between the management and the trade unions which provided that except the suspended workmen, the other workmen will join work and discharge their duties. It appears that in spite of this agreement, the work could not be carried on. According to the management, it was the non-co-operation of the workmen which was responsible for the situation whereas according to the trade unions, the management did not permit the workmen to work and hence the said stalemate. While the situation continued thus, the District Administration and the Labour Department of the State Government took initiative by making efforts to enable the workmen to work in the Company. On February 8, 1991, a meeting was held in the presence of the Additional District Magistrate and the Deputy Labour Commissioner in which the representatives of the management and the leaders of the trade unions participated. In this meeting, the Additional District Magistrate suggested that out of the suspended workmen, those who had no serious charges against them be reinstated and the inquiry be conducted against all the suspended workmen including those so reinstated so that work could be carried on. The representatives of the management, however, did not agree to the said suggestion and requested for postponement of the meeting to enable them to consult their higher officials. The meeting was, therefore, postponed to February 11, 1991. No positive reply was received from the management with the result that work could not be carried on upto and inclusive of March 3, 1991. The work started and the production commenced only on March 4, 1991. The management did not pay wages to the workmen for the period from December 21, 1990 to March 3, 1991.

2. The Additional Labour Commissioner issued a notice dated February 27, 1991 under S.3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace *(Temporary Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the appellant-company was called upon to show cause as to why order for payment of wages to the workmen under S. 3 of the Act be not made against it. The hearing of the notice was fixed on March 10, 1991. The appellant-Company submitted its representation including the supplementary representation. The Company was given personal hearing. After considering the material placed by the Company on record, the Additional Labour Commissioner passed an order on April 29, 1991 directing the recovery of Rs. 3,67,474/- from the Company for payment of wages to the workmen for the month of January 1991 only. This order was challenged by the Company on various grounds by a writ petition filed in the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order negatived all the contentions and dismissed the petition. The operative part of the order of the High Court is as follows:

*or Timely - Ed

"When order is passed under S. 3 of the Act for recovery of wages and the aggrieved party approaches the Government to refer the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government has hardly any option in view of the re