IMPORTANT POINT
The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 does not permit individual workmen to claim wage recovery; it is meant for collective disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) :

Heard Sri Abhijeet Chatterji, Advocate holding brief of Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. No one has appeared to argue on behalf of respondent No. 3, though the list of cases has been revised.

3. The respondent No. 3 moved an application dated 6.9.2002 invoking the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely payment of wages) Act, 1978 contending that he was appointed in the petitioner's organization on 14.1.1995 and he resigned from his post as a Welfare Officer on 26.7.1998, whereafter he was relieved. The respondent No. 3 relied upon the U.P. Factories Welfare Officers (9th Amendment) Rules, 2000 which came into force on 30.6.2000 whereby certain revision in pay scale admissible to the Welfare Officers was made. The claim of the respondent No. 3 was that he was entitled for revised pay scale and the amount be calculated as such for the period w.e.f. 14.1.1995 to 24.5.1998. A prayer was made by the respondent No. 3 that the aforesaid payment alongwith interest be realized from the petitioner-establishment.

4. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Sharanpur Division Sharanpur, vide order impugned dated 11.8.2003, issued recovery of sum of Rs. 1,52,864/- against the petitioner.

5. When this writ petition was entertained, an interim order was passed on 1.9.2003 staying the recovery proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid order impugned.

6. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the definition contained under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1978, the provisions of the said Act would be applicable for workmen and not for an individual workman. He submits that Section 3 of the said Act speaks of recovery proceedings in the case of workmen and the said provision cannot be invoked at the instance of a single workman in the establishment. He therefore submits that the very application filed by the respondent No. 3 was not maintainable and has been illegally allowed.

8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (125) 5LR 816 paragraph No. 18 whereof reads as follows:

''18. Coming to the facts of the present case, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand in view of the aforestated pronouncements of the Apex Court. Firstly, the respondent No. 5, Narendra Das Gaur, sought to raise his individual dispute by invoking the provisions of the Act, 1978 which is not permissible. There was no dispute with regard to the timely payment of wages of all the workmen of the establishment. Secondly, the wages were paid to the respondent No. 5 timely which were due according to the petitioner employer. Whether the respondent No. 5 was entitled for enhanced wages in view of the subsequent notification which came in force w.e.f. 30.1.2000 was a matter of dispute between the parties. The said dispute could have not been adjudicated upon under the provisions of the Act, 1978, being summary in nature. Thirdly, it is not a case of any of the respondents that the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner employer was frivolous or prima facie untenable. The case of the petitioner employer from the very beginning is that the respondent No. 5 was not a workman and in any view of the matter, the provisions of the Act, 1978 are not applicable so far as recovery of difference of his wages are concerned. The said plea so raised in reply to the show-cause notice has not been addressed at all before passing of the impugned order. Fourthly, no reasons have been given in the impugned order for not accepting or rejecting the pleas raised by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice. The Apex Court in the case of Modi Industries Limited (supra) has held that the Labour Commissioner is not a mere recov