Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 637
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Hasnain Massodi, J.
Director Agriculture, Kashmir & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Authority Under The Payment of Wages Act - Respondent
OWP No. 1065/2013 & CMP No. 1707/2013
Decided On : 07-12-2015
For the Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s): Mr. Sajad Mir, Dy. AG.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Koul, Advocate.
Headnote:
Payment of Wages Act - Unpaid Wages - 1936 - Section 15(2) - Section 17 - The judgment discusses the application of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, specifically focusing on the recovery of unpaid wages by the employees. The court highlights the key legal provisions of the Act, including the definition of 'employed person' and 'employer', responsibility of payment of wages, and the procedure for recovery of unpaid wages. The court emphasizes the importance of following the statutory remedy of appeal and the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 for recovery of unpaid wages. The Authority allowed the application, directing the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 16,66,450 with the Authority to be released in favor of the respondents. The appellants challenged the award primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and the status of the employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had the jurisdiction to deal with the application, and the appellants' failure to follow the remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act was fatal to their case. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners could work out any other remedy available under the law.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act, the status of the employees, and the failure of the petitioners to follow the remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the statutory remedy of appeal and held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had the jurisdiction to deal with the application under section 15(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was held to be bereft of merit and was accordingly dismissed, with the court stating that this dismissal would not stand in the way of the petitioners to work out any other remedy available under the law.
1. Challenge is to the award dated 27th April 2013, rendered by Authority Under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in claim petition tiled Bashir Ahmad Bhat & Ors. v. Commissioner Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture, whereby petition has been allowed and appellants directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 16,66,450 with the Authority, to be released in favour of respondents, on account of unpaid wages, earned by them. First an overview of background facts.
2. The respondents on 19th July 2012, approached the Authority Under Payment of Wages Act with an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, for recovery of unpaid wages. Sometime after the application was filed, 30 applicants withdrew the application and left 22 of their colleagues to prosecute the matter. The remaining applicants-22 in number, claimed an amount of Rs. 13,66,450 as unpaid wages from appellants'. The case set up was that applicants were engaged as casual laborers' by the appellants from time to time since 1992 to work at Seed Multiplication Farm (Padgampora) and worked under the close supervision of appellants 2 & 3. It is pleaded that appellants unjustifiably withheld their wages, constraining them to approach the Authority.
3. The appellants responded to the notice, issued by the Authority and filed their objections to the application.
4. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were framed by the Authority-
i) Whether claim of the applicants is within the time frame, fixed
in the Act, if not, whether delay is to be condoned? (OPA) ii) Whether the applicants have worked with respondents and
have earned wages? (OPA) iii) Whether the applicants are presently working in the Agriculture Farm? (OPA) iv) Whether the respondents are liable to pay the unpaid wages as
claimed? (OPR)
The parties were asked to adduce evidence in support of their respective stand.
5. The respondents to substantiate their claim and discharge the burden of issues, onus whereof, was placed on them, examined Sh. Ab. Rashid Dar, Gh. Hassan Dar, Manzoor Ahmad Rather, all residents of Padgampora and Manzoor Ahmad Naik resident of Tral. The appellants' did not examined even a single witness to prove their stand set up in opposition to application or rebut the evidence adduced by applicants.
6. The Authority on perusal of evidence brought on record on April 27th 2013, passed the award, impugned in the petition.
7. It is pertinent to point out that petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of their stand or to rebut evidence produced by respondents, even Manager Seed Multiplication Farm (Padgampora) did not step into the witness box to belie respondents claim.
8. The Authority while deciding the issues observed that respondents in the year 1992 were engaged as casual labourers by petitioner at Seed Multiplication Form, Department of Agriculture (Padgampora); that respondents worked under the supervision of respondents 2 & 3 and they were unjustifiably denied the wages for the period they served the department. The Authority accordingly settled all the issues in favour of respondents and against the petitioners and computed the wages due to respondents 2 to 23 on account of work done/duty discharged by them and directed petitioner to pay an amount of 30,66,450.
9. The award is questioned in the present petition, primarily on the ground that respondent no. 1 lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 16(2) of Payment of Wages Act 1936, much less dispose it off and pass the order, impugned in the petition. Reliance is placed on law laid down in judgment dated 13th May 2011, whereby OWP No. 106/2008, titled Director Agriculture, Kashmir and another v. Authority under Pay-ment of Wages Act, Budgam and Others 2011 (3) JKJ 455 [HC] has been dismissed. The award is also questioned on the ground that respondents 2 to 23 were not 'Government Employees' but 'where governed by the condition of services having been engaged on need basis, on whatsoever amount
