SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Gau) 243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
RANJAN GOGOI AND ASHOK POTSANGBAM, JJ.
Sweta Jalan and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
Nandalall and Sons Tea Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On : 07.04.2009

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rule 89 and 90 - Order 21 - Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 - Section 7 and 34/35 - Payment of Wages Act, 1936 - Section 15 , 15(3) and 17 - Financial losses - Suspension of work - Sought for disbursement of their arrear wages - Respondent Company, Nandalall & Sons Tea Industries (P) Limited owns and possesses a tea garden namely, Tea Estate in the district - Company inspite of its best efforts started incurring huge financial losses since year - It is further stated that Company due to aforesaid losses, could not make payment of salary/wages to its employees/workers for period - As respondent Company could not make further payment of unpaid wages/salary to workers and staff due to financial difficulty as discussed above a bipartite agreement was arrived at wherein respondent Company has agreed to make payment of wages/salary regularly - At or about same time Labour Inspector , respondent No. 4 in writ petition made an application to Assistant Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 2 in writ petition, alleging that an amount being arrear wages of 1105 workers of aforesaid Tea Garden for period had not been paid and accordingly a direction under Section of Payment of Wages Act was sought for disbursement of their arrear wages – Held, Apex Court held that sale made in execution of a valid decree is entitled to be confirmed even after decree was set aside subsequently - It is submitted that ratio laid down in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. (supra) has no application in present case inasmuch the entire proceeding before Assistant Labour Commissioner, which culminated into issuance of order dated and requisition dated were null and void for want of jurisdiction and competence - Admittedly, Office/Post of Assistant Labour Commissioner was not one of authorities identified under Section 15 of Wages Act for purpose of appointment as an authority to hear and decide claims arising - Apex Court held that decree being a nullity has to be treated as non-est and consequently sale when held was void initio - In such a case, there is no question of any party having to resort to provision of Rule 89 and 90 of order 21 CPC to have the sale set aside - Any claim based on a void sale can be resisted without having the sale set aside - All proceedings before Assistant Labour Commissioner and order dated and requisition dated issued thereunder are null and void and they are to be treated as non-est in law - Consequently, action taken and order issued by Certificate Officer on basis of proceedings and requisition dated of Assistant Labour Commissioner shall also be treated as non-est - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

Asok Potsangbam, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Shyam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Shri Kamal Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard the learned Govt. advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated March 16, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6499/2004, this appeal has been filed by the appellants, five in number, who are the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 in the Writ Petition No. 6499/2004. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and other private respondents in W.P.(C) No. 6499/2004 have not filed any appeal against the impugned Judgment dated March 16, 2007.

3. The facts., in brief, which are necessary for disposal of the writ appeal may be noticed as hereunder.

3(i) The respondent Company, Nandalall & Sons Tea Industries (P) Limited owns and possesses a tea garden namely, Hukimpukri Tea Estate in the district of Tinsukia, Assam. The company inspite of its best efforts started incurring huge financial losses since the year, 1998. It is further stated that the Company due to aforesaid losses, could not make payment of salary/wages to its employees/workers for the period from July 19, 2003 to October 10, 2003 and according to the Respondent Company, the defaulted amount for the aforesaid period was worked out to be Rs. 21,10,320.00 and because of this default in payment, there was labour unrest in the Tea Garden of the Respondent Company adversely affecting the production and manufacture of tea resulting into suspension of work in the Tea Garden temporarily.

3(ii) To resolve the stand-off, a tripartite agreement was arranged on September 5, 2003 on the understating that one month salary and fortnightly wages would be paid within September, 2003 and the remaining payment would be sorted out mutually. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia, was a signatory to the agreement. Pursuant to the aforesaid arrangement, an amount of Rs. 3,27,350.00 was disbursed to the workers and the employees as wages for the period from July 19, 2003 to August 1, 2003 by the respondent Company. As the respondent Company could not make further payment of the unpaid wages/salary to the workers and staff due to financial difficulty, as discussed above, a bipartite agreement was arrived at on December 10, 2003 wherein the respondent Company has agreed to make payment of wages/salary regularly from August, 2003. At or about the same time, the Labour Inspector, Tinsukia, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, made an application on October 18, 2003 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, alleging that an amount of Rs. 41,53,000.00, being the arrear wages of 1105 workers of the aforesaid Tea Garden, for the period from July 19, 2003 to October 10, 2003, had not been paid and accordingly, a direction under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act was sought for disbursement of their arrear wages. The aforesaid application was registered as Application No. 12/2003 and, thereafter a notice was issued by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner on October 20, 2003 to the respondent Company. The respondent Company submitted a representation on October 23, 2003 requesting the Asstt. Labour Commissioner to furnish details of the claimed amount of Rs. 41,53,000.00 with a prayer for condonation of delay in making the payment. Without furnishing the details of the claimed amount, as requested for, the respondent Company was directed by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner by order dated October 23, 2003, to pay the claimed amount within 15 days. The respondent company being not in a position to comply with the directions of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, filed an application dated October 23, 2003 praying for extension of time and in the meantime, an amount of Rs. 3,27,350.00 was disbursed to the workers being the wages for the period from July 19, 2003 to August 1, 2003.

3(iii) Being face





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top