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.

JUDGMENT :

01. A perverted exercise of the jurisdiction by the Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, purportedly acting under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 resulting in passing of one page order dated 17th of July, 2001 brought the writ petitioner petitioning this Court with the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the exercise of jurisdiction and passing of the impugned order dated 17th of July, 2001, whereby the petitioner was held liable for payment of Rs.2,96,782/- in favour of the respondent No.2.

02. The Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was approached by the respondent No.2- Mohammad Qasim Sheikh with an application without any reference as to under which law the said Authority was being approached by the respondent No.2 for claiming recovery of an amount of Rs.2,96,782/-.

03. In this application, the respondent No.2 came to make a purported reference that he had supplied labour force to the petitioner in connection with execution of a contract relating with construction of a bridge which was being carried out by the petitioner. In this application, how claim of Rs.2,96,782/- was drawn and by reference to which labourer/s there was no averment worth a whisper. The petitioner came to be proceeded ex-parte in the matter in terms of an order dated 14th of May, 2001 and in the ex-parte proceedings, the Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 came to record the statement of the respondent No.2 as a witness along with two other witnesses, namely, Nazir Ahmad Mir and Habib Sheikh.

04. On the basis of the ex-parte proceedings, the Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 came to pass an ex-parte order dated 17th of July, 2001, thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 2,96,782/- payable in favour of the respondent No.2 from the petitioner’s end and direction to pay the said amount was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order.

05. Getting confronted with the said ex-parte order dated 17th of July, 2001, the petitioner came to approach the Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with an application seeking setting side of the ex-parte order and the ex-parte proceedings attending therewith.

06. In terms of an order dated 10th of December, 2001, the ex-parte order dated 17th of July, 2001 and the ex-parte proceedings related therewith came to be set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- imposed upon the petitioner and the proceedings in the case were to start afresh.

07. Costs of Rs.3,000/- imposed upon the petitioner came to be received by the respondent No.2, meaning thereby that the setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 17th of July, 2001 stood confirmed.

08. The respondent No.2 aggrieved of setting aside of ex-parte order dated 17th of July, 2001 in terms of the order dated 10th of December, 2001 came forward with a writ petition OWP No. 38/2002 before this Court which came to suffer dismissal for non-prosecution in terms of an order dated 26th of February, 2004.

09. Dismissal of the respondent No.2’s writ petition OWP No. 38/2002 meant that order dated 10th of December, 2001 whereby the setting aside of ex-parte order dated 17th of July, 2001 had taken place, came to be confirmed and that warranted de-novo proceedings in the case which accordingly came to be set into effect in terms of an order dated 15th of December, 2005 by the Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

10. From the perusal of the record, it comes forth that in terms of an order dated 9th of September, 2006, the petitioner, as non-applicant No.1 in the application before the Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kashmir under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for his non-appearance in the case was agai