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

2007 Supreme(J&K) 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Ex. Engineer - Appellant
Versus
Authority Under Payment Of Wages Act - Respondent
OWP No. 489/1999
Decided On : 03 September, 2007

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: M.A. Beigh
Advocate For Respondent: None

The main legal point established in the judgment is that where an alternate remedy is available, a writ petition is not maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, including the requirement of depositing the awarded amount before filing an appeal.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Payment of Wages Act - Section 17 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Payment of Wages Act, Section 17(1)(a) - The court discussed the aim and object of the Payment of Wages Act, the provision of appeal under section 17(1)(a), and the requirement of depositing the awarded amount before filing an appeal. The court emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy through appeal and cited relevant case law to support the dismissal of the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash an ex-parte award under the Payment of Wages Act. The respondent had filed a claim petition for non-payment of wages, and the petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte award was rejected. The petitioner approached the court through a writ petition, claiming no alternate remedy was available.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that an alternate remedy was available to the petitioner through the provision of appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the availability of an alternate remedy rendered the writ not maintainable.

Issues: The main issue was the availability of an alternate remedy for the petitioner, and whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the provision of appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that where an alternate remedy is available, a writ petition is not maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, including the requirement of depositing the awarded amount before filing an appeal.

Final Decision: The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it along with all connected CMPs.

1. Petitioner has sought indulgence of the court for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated 21-2-1998 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Baramulla as Authority under Payment of Wages Act (for short the Act) in the claim petition titled Ali Mohammad Bhat Vs. Executive Engineer & others, whereby an ex-parte award to the tune of Rs. 2,51,740/- in favour of the applicant -- respondent No. 2 herein read with order dated 22-7-1999, whereunder the application filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside exparte award came to be rejected.. The brief facts of the case are to be noticed:

2. Respondent No. 2, Ali Mohammad Bhat filed a claim petition before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act -- Assistant Labour Commissioner, Baramula with the averments that he supplied 557 labourers and 269 masons to the respondents 3 and 4, but the petitioner -- non-applicant failed to pay wages to him which constrained him to invoke jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act. Exparte award came to be passed. The petitioner filed an application before Authority under Payment of Wages Act, for setting aside exparte award which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22-7-1999. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has questioned the same before this court through the medium of this writ petition on the grounds taken in the writ petition and prayed for quashment of the same.

3. It is specifically averred by the petitioners in the petition that they have no other alternate and efficacious remedy available to them except to file this petition. The question is whether the petitioner has efficacious and alternate remedy available? The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons:-

4. The aim and object of the Payment of Wages Act is to pass effective orders for the redressal of grievances of workman and if on facts it is found that the wages of a workman have been withheld or employer has acted in such a manner which is apparently detrimental to the employee, the authorities under the laws particularly administering the social justice for the working class cannot be held to be helpless in granting relief in appropriate cases. If an award is passed in favour of the claimant, the aggrieved person can file an appeal in terms of section 17 of the Act subject to fetters and restrictions. It is profitable to reproduce section 17(1)(a) hereunder:

"17. Appeal- (1) An appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under sub-section (2) of section 15, or against a direction made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of that section may be preferred, within thirty days of the date on which the order or direction was made, in a Presidency-town before the court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court--

(a) by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3, if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeds three hundred rupees or such direction has the effect of imposing on the employer or the other person a financial liability exceeding on e thousand rupees....."

5. As per mandate of this provision of law, the appellant has to annex a certificate to the effect that it has deposited the amount payable under the award, appealed against. The aim of this section is to ensure that the wages/awarded amount is to be deposited before the authority before filing the appeal and appeal can only there-after be competent. It has social purpose and object behind it, i.e. to save the labourer from the social evils. If appeal is filed without certificate, it is incompetent, ineffective and incomplete.

Appellant in the instant case has not chosen to avail the alternate remedy by preferring an appeal. Instead of challenging the said order, by way of appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the averment that efficacious remedy was not available to him, which is not correct. This writ petition has been filed with the sole











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top