The Labour Commissioner's power under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 is an emergency power to maintain industrial peace and prevent a grave threat to law and order. The final adjudication on the question of default in payment of wages lies with the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - PAYMENT OF WAGES - TIMELY PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1978 (U.P.) - SECTION 3 - ORDER FOR RECOVERY OF WAGES - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COMMISSIONER - NO WORK NO WAGES PRINCIPLE - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:

Dispute between management and trade unions of a company led to suspension of 30 workmen and halt in production. Despite an agreement to allow other workmen to work, production could not resume due to absence of suspended technicians. The District Administration and Labour Department intervened, suggesting reinstatement of some suspended workmen to enable work resumption, but the management did not agree. The Additional Labour Commissioner issued a notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, directing the company to pay wages for January 1991. The company challenged this order in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The Labour Commissioner has the power to issue a certificate for recovery of wages as arrears of land revenue if satisfied that an industrial establishment is in default of payment of wages exceeding Rs. 50,000. This power is an emergency power to maintain industrial peace and prevent a grave threat to law and order. The final adjudication on the question of default in payment of wages lies with the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The order of the Labour Commissioner under Section 3 is not final and is subject to adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass an order for recovery of wages under Section 3 of the Act without a final adjudication on the question of default in payment of wages? 2. Whether the "no work no wages" principle applies to industrial establishments, and whether workmen are entitled to wages for a month in which they did not work? 3. Whether the impugned order is a non-speaking order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Commissioner's power under Section 3 of the Act is an emergency power to maintain industrial peace and prevent a grave threat to law and order. The final adjudication on the question of default in payment of wages lies with the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. The order of the Labour Commissioner under Section 3 is not final and is subject to adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The "no work no wages" principle applies to industrial establishments. If workmen are willing to work but are prevented from doing so by the employer, they are entitled to wages. However, if workmen refuse to work despite being offered work, the employer is justified in deducting wages for the period of absence. 3. The impugned order is not a non-speaking order. An authority exercising administrative power is not required to pass a speaking order unless required by statute.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal, and the State Government is directed to pass an appropriate order within six weeks if the petitioner approaches it for reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.

R. A. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and runs various industries including the Modi Banaspati Manufacturing Co. (hereinafter referred to as the company) at Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. On 19. 12. 1990 there was some dispute between the management of the Company and the Trade Union Leaders, which resulted in lodging of two first information reports by the management and the trade union leaders against each other and suspension of 30 workmen of the Company by its management. From 21. 12. 1990, according to the Company, the workmen came to the Company s premises but did not discharge their duties on account of which there was complete halt in production; but according to the respondents trade unions although the workmen were coming to the Companys premises regularly but the production could not be carried on as 30 workmen, who were suspended, were technicians and in their absence it was not possible to operate the machines. However, on 27. 12. 1990 an agreement was arrived at between the management of the Company and the trade unions in which it was provided that excepting the employees, who have been suspended, the management of the company will permit the other workmen to work and those workmen will go to the Company for discharging their duties. It appears that in spite of this agreement the work could not be carried on in the Company. According to the management of the Company the work could not be carried on due to non-cooperation by the workmen; but according to the trade unions management did not permit the workmen to work. Under these circumstances, the District Administration and the labour Department started making efforts so as to enable the workmen to work in the Company. On 8. 2. 1991 a meeting was held in the presence of the Additional District Magistrate and the deputy Labour Commissioner in which the representatives of the management of the Company and the leaders of the trade unions were present. Before the aforesaid authorities a grievance was made on behalf of the trade unions that in the absence of the technical person, it is not possible to run the Company, although the workers are always ready to discharge their duties. In view of this position the Additional District Magistrate suggested that out of the suspended workmen all those persons against whom there are no serious charges be reinstated and the inquiry may be continued against them also so that work can be carried in the Company. But the representatives of the management did not agree with the aforesaid suggestion and requested for the postponement so as to enable them to consult the higher officials of the management. In view of this position 11. 1. 1991 was fixed as the next date. It appears that no positive reply was received from the management on account of which work could not be carried on in the Company upto 3. 3. 1991 and it was only on 4. 3. 1991 that the Company started the production. The management of the Company did not pay the wages to the workmen from 21. 12. 1990 to 3. 3. 1991. The additional Labour Commissioner issued a notice dated 27. 2. 1991 under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why order for payment of wages under Section-3 of the Act be not made against it and in that connection 10. 3. 1991 was fixed for appearance of the representatives of the petitioner The petitioner submitted its representation as well as the supplementary representation. They were also given opportunity of personal hearing. After considering the material placed by the petitioner the Additional Labour Commissioner passed an order dated 29. 4. 1991 (Annexure-V to the writ petition) under Section 3 of the Act directing for recovery of Rs. 3,67,474/- from the petitioner for payment of wages to the workmen for the month of January, 1991. It is against this order that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(All) 785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADV. K. Khanna and R. A. Sharma, JJ.MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. - AppellantVersusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND ORS. - RespondentsC. M. W. P. 13001 Of 1991Decided On : 11/12/1991

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Khanna and R. A. Sharma, JJ.
MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHAND ORS. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 13001 Of 1991
Decided On : 11/12/1991