The Authority's jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is limited to deciding claims of illegal deductions or delayed payment of wages, and it cannot determine the status of employees or rewrite their service contracts.

1. Shri Ghulam Nabi Gujri son of Fateh Gujri Resident of Baramulla and his 35 other colleagues-respondents 2 to 36 herein, on 12.01.2004 approached the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, (Kashmir Division) Srinagar, (herein after the Authority) with an application under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act 1936, (the Act, for short) pleading that the non-applicants-present petitioners, had been making illegal deductions from their wages in disregard of Section 7 of the Act and sought a direction under Section 15 of the Act, to the non-applicants-present petitioners, requiring them to pay the respondent 2 to 36 deducted amount w.e.f. from the date of their initial engagement i.e. 1991. The Authority vide order dated 11th January 2005 by an exparte order, allowed the application and directed the petitioners to deposit with it within 30 days, an amount of Rs. 42, 31, 664/- on account of deducted wages of the respondent 2 to 36.

2. The order of the Authority dated 11th January 2005 is questioned in the writ petition in hand, on the grounds that the Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, in as much as Department of Agriculture Government of Jammu and Kashmir has not been notified by the (Sic) Government as an established to be included within the definition of "Industry or establishment" under Section 2(ii) of the Act, and that the Act, thus is not applicable to the respondent. It is pleaded, that the respondents 2 to 36 were engaged on consolidated wages @ Rs. 300 and 500 per month, have been working as such and that the impugned order has been passed in "derogation of the Act". The petitioners also question jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain a time barred claim and direct payment of deducted wages not permitted under the Act.

3. The petitioners on the strength of grounds set out in the petition seek a writ of certiorari quashing order of Authority dated 11.01.2005 impugned in the petition as also the orders made subsequent thereto by the Executing Court.

4. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that as the petitioners have failed to question the impugned order in an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, and not made use of appropriate efficacious statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction to question the impugned order. It is insisted that the Authority while passing the impugned order has acted within its jurisdiction delineated in Section 15(3) of the Act, and passed the order on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence brought on record, and thus the order is beyond challenge, more so in a petition under Section 226 Constitution of India. The writ petition to challenge the impugned order, it is pleaded, would be maintainable only when impugned order is found to be without jurisdiction. The respondents 2 to 36 insist that they have been working as daily wagers in the Department of Agriculture for more than 16 years and the wages to which they are entitled have been delayed/deducted due to non-availability of funds. It is refuted, that in absence of a notification declaring the Department of Agriculture as an establishment in terms of Section 2(ii) of the Act, machinery available under the Act, cannot be pressed into service by the respondents 2 to 36 to recover delayed or illegally deducted wages. The respondents 2 to 36 plead, that the Department of Agriculture having regard to its activities falls within "Industry or other establishment" as defined under Section 2 (ii) (f) of the Act, and that the Act, in terms of Section 1 (4) of the Act was applicable to the payment of the wages to the respondents 2 to 36 as also their similarly situated employees of the Department. The respondents deny that they were engaged on consolidated basis at the rate of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 500/ - per month and not daily wagers. Repelling the contention that the Authority entertained as time barred claim of the respondents 2 to 36, it is pleaded, that the Authority in exercise of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document