Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 5 and Sri Qamar Ahmad who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 6.

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Kanpur. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 27.8.2010 passed in T.T.P.W. Case No. 2 of 2008 passed by the opposite party No. 3. It further challenges the recovery certificate dated 27.8.2010 passed in pursuance of the aforesaid order whereby an amount of Rs. 1,83,17, 232/- is being sought to be recovered from the petitioner under the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. The petitioner has also challenged the recovery citation dated 7.9.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 5 to the writ petition. The orders so challenged have been annexed as Annexures No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.

3. Counter-affidavit was very promptly filed by Sri Qamar Ahmad on 1.10.2010 in this matter and a rejoinder-affidavit was also filed on 22.10.2010, as such the petition became ripe for hearing very quickly. A Supplementary Affidavit has also been filed by Mr. R.K. Chaudhary on 29.10.2010 which is also taken on record.

The main arguments of the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority, the opposite party No. 3, had no jurisdiction to settle the dispute and to issue the award. There was apparent lack of jurisdiction. The opposite party No. 3 should not have decided the matter under the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978. It has been argued that the claim of the workmen should have been first adjudicated under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1978 as the same was being disputed by the petitioners. It has also been argued that Timely payment of Wages Act, 1978 should not have been pressed into service in the present circumstances of the case. The matter is quite old and the parties are at litigation for nearly three years and, as such the jurisdiction of opposite party No. 3 under the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 was barred at the threshold.

4. Sri Chaudhary has also argued that in all there were 532 workmen to have already settled their disputes with the petitioner in the presence of the labour authorities and there are only 132 workmen who have opted out of the settlement, hence to say that there is no dispute regarding 132 workmen is absolutely whimsical, arbitrary and beyond comprehension. There is non-application of mind alongwith mis-interpretation of law and misconceived notion about jurisdiction. It has also been argued that the petitioners cannot be compelled to make payment to the workmen on account of the irresponsible activities of the workmen which led to the closure of the unit. This kind of award without adjudication of their claim will amount to illegal benefits for their unruly behaviour and the ‘Award’ will turn into ‘Reward’ for misdeeds. According to the petitioners the workmen have not worked and hence, they are not entitled of any ‘wages’. A number of other ancillary arguments have been raised on behalf of the petitioner.

5. A very bulky rejoinder affidavit has been filed running into nearly 300 pages. A number of agreements and other documents have been annexed by the petitioner. All these documents have been brought on record to impress upon the Court that the matter has been pending for quite sometime at various forums and, as such, it is not a simple matter which can be adjudicated under the provisions of Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978.

As mentioned above a counter-affidavit was promptly filed by Sri Qamar Ahmad on behalf of opposite party No. 6 which is a ‘Union’. In the counter-affidavit the case of the opposite parties has been narrated in their own words before giving a para-wise reply. It will be necessary and important that the case as set up by the opposite parties themselves may be narrated