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

1996 Supreme(All) 766

A.B.SRIVASTAVA
D. C. M. LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY (PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
TARUN AGARWAL

A. B. SRIVASTAVA, J.


( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to act as the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and for quashing the order dated September 12, 1984 of the Prescribed Authority accepting the claims of the respondent Nos. 4 to 29 to be within limitation and order dated March 31, 1987 awarding a total sum of Rs 11,51,150/- to the respondent Nos. 4 to 29. The break up being Rs 1,04,650/towards payment of deductions made from the wages of these respondents and Rupees 10,46,500/- being compensation at ten times of the said amount. The amount awarded to each of the respondent being Rs. 40,250/ -.

( 2 ) THE respondent Nos. 4 to 29 made applica tion under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages act, 1936 to the respondent No. 1, the prescribed authority alleging that they are employed in the daurala Sugar Works, Meerut, a unit of M/s Delhi Cloth and General Mill Ltd as Palledars. Their terms of employment and conditions are governed by the I and II Sugar Wage Board re ports. The petitioner employer has not paid the wages of the respondents Nos. 4 to 29 for the pe riod October 1, 198














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
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top