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

1987 Supreme(All) 591

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.N. VARMA, PALOK BASU, JJ.
Harsha Tractors Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
S. K. Srivastava - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13121 of 1986
Decided on : Dec 23, 1987

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
M. Katju

The Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, is not ultra vires the Constitution, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, and provides sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of industrial establishments.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL PEACE (TIMELY PAYMENT OF WAGES) ACT, 1978 - SECTIONS 3, 4 - PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1938 - SECTIONS 5, 17 - SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1985 - SECTIONS 15, 16, 22 - PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965 - SECTION 36 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 14, 226 - RECOVERY CERTIFICATE - ISSUANCE - VALIDITY - CHALLENGED - GROUNDS - ULTRA VIRES - ARBITRARINESS - ILLEGAL STRIKE - SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY - EXEMPTION FROM BONUS PAYMENT - CONSIDERED AND REJECTED - PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, M/s. Harsha Tractors Limited, challenged the recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad, for non-payment of wages and bonus to its workmen. The petitioner contended that the State Act, the Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, was ultra vires, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It also argued that the recovery proceedings were barred due to an ongoing illegal strike, the petitioner's status as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and an application for exemption from bonus payment under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State Act was not ultra vires, as it occupied a different field from the Central Act, the Payment of Wages Act, 1938, and did not require the President's assent. The court also found that the State Act provided sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of industrial establishments and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court further held that the petitioner's status as a sick industrial company or the application for exemption from bonus payment did not bar the recovery proceedings, as the inquiry under the Sick Industrial Companies Act had not been initiated, and the application for exemption was pending.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Act, the Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, was ultra vires the Constitution. 2. Whether the State Act was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the recovery proceedings were barred due to an ongoing illegal strike. 4. Whether the petitioner's status as a sick industrial company barred the recovery proceedings. 5. Whether the application for exemption from bonus payment barred the recovery proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Act was not ultra vires, as it occupied a different field from the Central Act, the Payment of Wages Act, 1938, and did not require the President's assent. 2. The State Act provided sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of industrial establishments and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The recovery proceedings were not barred due to an ongoing illegal strike, as the petitioner had not challenged the correctness of the amounts shown as outstanding in the certificate. 4. The petitioner's status as a sick industrial company did not bar the recovery proceedings, as the inquiry under the Sick Industrial Companies Act had not been initiated. 5. The application for exemption from bonus payment did not bar the recovery proceedings, as the application was pending.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order staying the recovery proceedings was vacated.

JUDGMENT

Palok Basu, J.

1. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad, on being satisfied that :- (a) A sum of Rs 100720/- as wages for the month of July, 1986 (b) A sum of Rs. 99680/- as arrears of bonus for the financial year 1984-85 total Rs. 2004200/- remained unpaid by an Industrial Establishment known as M/s. Harsha Tractors Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, issued a recovery certificate addressed to the Collector, Ghaziabad, for the said amount on 17-8-87.

2. It appears that the aforesaid amount remaining outstanding, the workmen of the said Industrial Establishment initiated proceedings under section 3 of the Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the State Act. Being thus satisfied that the said amount was in fact due, the recovery certificate was issued under section 3 of the State Act.

M/s. Harsha Tractors Limited have thus filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari praying that the said recovery certificate dated 17-8-86 be quashed. We have heard Mr. M. Katju, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing the State machinery and Sri K. P. Agarwala, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the two unions espousing the causes of the workmen impleaded as opposite party no. 3 and 4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued 5 points in order to challenge the said recovery certificate : Point No. 1: The State Act is ultra vires because its field of operation is occupied by the Central Legislation known as 'Payment of Wages Act, 1938', hereinafter referred to as the Central Act inasmuch as the President's assent has not been obtained. It is thus argued that the Central Act alone will continue to be operative. Point No. 2 ; The State Act is arbitrary inasmuch as it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it affords neither a right of appeal nor an opportunity of hearing before issuing a recovery certificate. Point No 3 : Since the workmen had gone on illegal strikes which forced the petitioner to declare lock-out on 7-8-1986, no recovery can be made as regards their wages. Point No 4 : An application has been moved by the petitioners before the concerned authorities constituted under the provisions contained in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, for short, the 'Sick Company Act'. It is argued that the said application having been registered by the Secretary of the Board under the Sick Company Act the petitioner became a sick-industrial-company within the meaning of section 3 (o) of the said Act with the result that the recovery proceedings are bad in view of the bar imposed by section 22 of the said Act. Point No 5 : Since an application has been moved by the petitioner before the State of U. P. for exemption in payment of bonus as envisaged by section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, its non-payment cannot become the subject-matter of the recovery.

4. The learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the opposite parties have argued that none of these points are available to the petitioner and the petition should be dismissed.

We would like to take up the first three points together. Point No. 1 Point No 2 and Point No 3 : The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sub-section (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that where a law made by the legislature of State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the "concurrent list", containing provisions repugnant to an earlier or existing law made by the Parliament, the law so made by the State Legislature of such State shall operate in that State only when it has been reserved for consideration of the President and has received his assent. It is further argued that while section 5 of the Central Act provides that the wages of every person employed in Industrial Establishment shall be paid by the 7th day of the succeedin


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
whatsapp-icon Back to top