Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Jain Loha Udyog – Appellant
Versus
Lav Kush Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order related to wages payment. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding non-submission of evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on jurisdiction and labour court's order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed, no illegality found. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4th July, 2019 whereby the petition under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was allowed and the petitioner-management was directed to make payment of Rs.29,700/- towards the wages for the period 1st December, 2017 to 9th March, 2018 along with compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- as per the provisions of Section 15(3) of the payment of Wages Act, 1936.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order primarily on the ground that that the respondent-workman has been filing such petition against different employers. Further, there was no document or evidence produced before the learned Labour Court by the respondent- workman to substantiate his claim.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application on behalf of the petitioner-management for setting aside ex part
The jurisdiction of the writ court is not for appellate review of Labour Court decisions; it must ensure there is no illegality or perversity in the lower court's order while affirming the duty to pa....
The court emphasized the importance of consistency in legal decisions across similar cases, allowing a petition to set aside a previous order based on established precedents.
The court affirmed the finality of Labour Court decisions in employment disputes and emphasized the need for substantiated claims regarding undertakings.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner's order was void as it lacked jurisdiction to award wages to a supplier of labor without identifying specific employees under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
In a writ of certiorari filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court cannot take cognizance of the fact, which was not even pleaded before the Labour Court.
A court may set aside an ex parte award and allow a party to contest the matter on merits provided they compensate the opposing party for costs incurred due to the default in appearance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
