Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
Modi Rubber Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 26661 and 25993 of 2007
Decided On : 29-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vijay Sinha, Anurag Khanna, Syed Fahim Ahmed, Syeed Fahim Ahmed and V.B. Singh
For the Respondents: C.S.C., C.K. Rai, F. Rai, Ghazala Bano Quadri, Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Samir Sharma, Swatashwa Agarwal and Y.K. Sinha
Headnote:
Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 –learned counsel for the petitioner, for the respondent No. 8, for the respondent No. 9 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7. No one appeared for the remaining respondent Nos. 10 to 102 during the course of hearing. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record. Two above noted writ petitions are directed against the recovery orders issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Pre-scribed Authority. Main contest is in writ petition filed, the employer, as the connected writ petition is by the workmen who stood in support of the employer/management. The petitioner hereinafter, therefore, refers to the employer/management only. The recovery orders are challenged on the ground that there was a dispute with regard to entitlement of the workmen to wages for different period mentioned therein. It is contended that on receipt of notice from the Presiding Officer, Timely Payment of Wages Act, a written statement 1was filed by the employer/petitioner herein. It was submitted therein that the workmen had resorted to illegal strike in the factory which had resulted in stoppage of production. The act of illegal strike of the workmen was communicated to the Deputy Labour Commissioner from time to time. With the efforts of management and few workers' representative, a settlement had been arrived, which was registered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, vide registration certificate – Held In Posysha Industries Company Limited, it has been held by this Court that where no case has been made out of a valid lay off or lockout or retrenchment or closure, so long as relationship of master and servant between the company and its workmen continues, the employer is bound to pay wages to the workmen. Even if, the employer for some reason does not feel inclined to get actually the work done by the workmen. The employer cannot dispute its liability because of the sickness of the unit or pendency of the scheme for rehabilitation before BIFR. The proceeding for recovery of wages under the Timely Payment of Wages Act cannot be interfered oh the plea of sickness of the unit.
Facts of The Case:
For the above discussion, it is held that the recovery certificates cannot be held illegal on the aforesaid pleas of the employer. The claim of the workmen in respect of wages was not a disputed claim. The relationship of master and servant continues till employee is retrenched or terminated. The workers who are not signatories to the two settlements are entitled to pursue the recovery certificates issued in their favour, subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. However, those who had signed the aforesaid settlements and settled their dues with the employer have survived with no further claim.
Finding of The Court:
In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders of issuance of recovery passed by the Labour Commissioner under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.K. Rai for the respondent No. 8, Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri for the respondent No. 9 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7. No one appeared for the remaining respondent Nos. 10 to 102 during the course of hearing.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record.
3. Two above noted writ petitions are directed against the recovery orders issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad/Pre-scribed Authority under the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Timely Payment of Wages Act" or "the Act, 1978"). Main contest is in writ petition filed by M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd., the employer, as the connected writ petition is by the workmen who stood in support of the employer/management. The petitioner hereinafter, therefore, refers to the employer/management only.
4. The recovery orders are challenged on the ground that there was a dispute with regard to entitlement of the workmen to wages for different period mentioned therein. It is contended that on receipt of notice from the Presiding Officer, Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978, a written statement was filed by the employer/petitioner herein. It was submitted therein that the workmen had resorted to illegal strike in the factory w.e.f. 7th August, 2001, which had resulted in stoppage of production. The act of illegal strike of the workmen was communicated to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut from time to time. With the efforts of management and few workers' representative, a settlement dated 14.1.2002 had been arrived, which was registered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Meerut vide registration certificate dated 30th January, 2002.
5. It was, inter alia, agreed in the settlement in Clause 7 that the management would strive to restart the production after arranging required funds and raw materials and other means w.e.f. 1st February, 2002 and the workers would not demand wages till when the production was not commenced or till the production was restarted. It was submitted that the fact of illegal strike and that the management had not been able to restart the production operations which continued to remain disrupted for the act of the workers was well within the knowledge of the Labour authorities. The settlement dated 14.1.2002 registered under Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 27 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947 was binding upon the workmen having been signed by the office bearers of the then existing registered union. Another settlement had been arrived on 19.11.2003 and the workmen had admitted that they were not entitled to wages on the principle of "no work no pay" for the period of disruption of production in the factory.
6. It was further contended that the said dispute was beyond the purview of the Assistant Labour Commissioner who was manning the office of the Prescribed Authority, Timely Payment of Wages Act. The claim of the workers was required to be rejected outrightly.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing the above noted averments in the written statement vehemently submits that enquiry under Section 3 of the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 is limited in its scope. The power of the Prescribed Authority under the said Act extends only to find out whether the workmen had put in work for the period of demand of wages as per terms of their employment and they were entitled to wages for no default on their part or it has wrongly been withheld by the employer. The Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction to act as an adjudicator if entitlement of the workmen to the wages is disputed. In the instant case, the liability of the employers to pay wages to the workmen was seriously disputed, it was, thus, incumbent on the Prescribed Authority to relegate the workmen to the labour Court/industrial tribunal. The disposal
