The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not applicable to wages which average at Rs. 1,600/- or more per month.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - STANDING ORDERS - WAGES - PAYMENT - BREACH - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - APPLICABILITY - WAGES EXCEEDING RS. 1,600/- PER MONTH - REMEDY UNDER THE ACT NOT AVAILABLE - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABLE - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DIRECTION TO EMPLOYER TO PAY UNPAID WAGES - INSTALMENTS - APPOINTMENT OF OFFICER TO MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDER.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner-Union, representing employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, alleged non-payment of wages for the period from January to December 1996 and balance of wages for the period from October to December 1995. Despite intervention by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad, the employers failed to pay the wages. The petitioner sought directions against the respondents-employer to pay the balance of wages and full wages for the period from January 1996 to February 1997.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the respondents-employer had not paid the wages as claimed by the Union, had no intentions to pay the wages, was totally non-committal for any steps on its part to restart the factory operations, and was not worried if the factory continued to remain as a sick unit. The Court also found that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were not applicable to the present case as the average rate of wages of every employee was more than Rs. 1,600/- per month.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who do not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are a State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether a writ or a direction in the nature of writ can be issued against the said respondents? 3. Whether the management of Zalani Tools (India) is liable to pay the arrears of wages for the period from October to December 1995 and the unpaid salary/wages for the period from January 1996 to February 1997?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not applicable to wages which average at Rs. 1,600/- or more per month. In the present case, the average rate of wages of every employee was more than Rs. 1,600/- per month. Therefore, the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act are not applicable to the present case. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not a State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the factory at Aurangabad is covered under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which has statutory force and creates a statutory provision regulating the employer and employee relation and terms of employment of the employees. The failure on the part of the respondents management in respect of the payment of wages or the payment of balance of wages for the period from October 1995 to February 1997 amounts to breach of the statutory provisions on the part of the employer management and hence writ petition in such a situation is certainly maintainable, against a body corporate. 3. The management of Zalani Tools (India) is liable to pay the arrears of wages for the period from October to December 1995 and the unpaid salary/wages for the period from January 1996 to February 1997.
Final Decision: The Court directed the management of Zalani Tools (India) to pay the arrears of wages for the period from October to December 1995 before the end of June 1997 and to pay the unpaid salary/wages for the period from January 1996 to February 1997 by eight equal monthly instalments commencing from July 1997. The Court also appointed Mr. Munje, Assistant Labour Commissioner as a Officer to monitor implementation of this order and submit the report from time to time to the Court.

JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard Shri Gangadhar Gade, President of Panther Power Kamgar Sanghatana - party in person, Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A.M. Kanade, Government Pleader for respondent No. 3.

2.Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

3.A letter dated 19-3-1997 addressed by the present petitioner came to be converted as a writ petition and registered as Writ Petition No. 1087 of 1997 as per the directions of the learned Senior Judge of this Bench. The grievance of the petitioner-Union was that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 employers were not paying the salary for the period from January to December 1996 as well as the balance of wages for the period from October to December 1995. It was further contended that the wages for the period from January to February 1997 were also not paid by the employers. It is the case of the petitioner - Union that inspite of intervention by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad, the employers did not pay the wages though he had agreed to pay the said wages during the meetings held in the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad on several occasions. The petitioner therefore sought intervention of this Court on the ground that inspite of efforts made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the respondents employer has been deliberately avoiding to pay wages and the said act on the part of the employer was mala fide inasmuch as some how or the other the employer is bent upon creating situation forcing closure of the factory in the M.I.D.C. area Chikalthana, Aurangabad though the said factory is about 25 years old and is an established manufacturer of hand tools. The petitioner has thus prayed for directions against respondents-employer to pay the balance of wages for the period from October to December 1995 as well as full wages for the period from January 1996 to February 1997.

4.On hearing party-in-person we had issued notice to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, at the first instance, and called upon him to file an affidavit which he did on 27th of March 1997. In the said affidavit of the Deputy Labour Commissioner it is, inter-alia, stated that:

(a) due to non payment of the electricity bills by the management, the electric power supply of the said Jhalani Tools was disconnected;

(b) the respondents-employer did not provide sufficient raw material for manufacturing hand tools;

(c) the management failed to pay balance of 50 per cent wages for the period from October to December 1995 and full wages for the period from January 1996 to February 1997; and

(d) the tripartite meetings were scheduled on various dates right from 29-11-1995 to 3-3-1997 (on about 12 occasions) and in the said meetings the Vice President (Tech.) i.e. respondent No. 1 did not appear and in the meeting held on 17-1-1997 the respondent No. 1 appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and agreed at least one month's salary to be disbursed on or before 30-1-1997 and inspite of this assurance the respondent No. 1 failed to pay the amount of wages which is more particularly shown in the Annexure R-1 to the affidavit.

The details of unpaid wages as set out in the said annexure are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr.Month Amount

No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

01December 1995 (15 days)

02October 1995 (15 days)Rs. 26,45,800.00

03November 1995 (15 days)

04January 1996Rs. 17,50,000.00

05February 1996Rs. 17,50,000.00

06March 1996Rs. 17,50,000.00

07October 1996Rs. 17,50,000.00

08November 1996Rs. 17,50,000.00

09December 1996Rs. 17,50,000.00

10January 1997Rs. 17,50,000.00

11February 1997Rs. 17,50,000.00

Total 9½ months.

------------------------------------------------------

Click Here to Read the rest of this document