Back
1998 (2) JLJ 214
Shacheendra Dwivedi and A.S. Tripathi, JJ.
J.C. Mills Ltd., Gwalior and others v. Payment of Wages
Inspector and another
L.P.A No. 54 of 1997; against the order of Single Judge, passed in Writ
Petitions No. 619,1066, 1074, 1093, 1058 and 1065 of 1994;
Decided on 30:8.1997.
(2) Payment of Wages Act, 1936 -- S. 15 (2) (as amended in M.P.) -- powers of authority under -- are very wide -- he can deal with every concerned situation -- call upon the persons whose duty is to pay the wages due -- can give necessary direction. [Para 28
(3) Payment of Wages Act, 1936 -- Ss. 15 (2), 4 and 5 -- Authority under the Act -- has jurisdiction to order payment of wages fixed or prescribed if not paid within the statutory period -- person responsible to pay the wages can accordingly be directed to make the payment. AIR 1961 SC 970 and AIR 1969 SC 590 followed. [Paras 29 & 30
(4) Payment of Wages Act, 1936 -- Ss. 3 and 15 (2) -- company employer -- Authority under the Act can call upon directors or anyone director or occupier of the factory to make the payment of back wages to employees. (1996) 6 SCC 665 and 1991 Supp. (I) SCC 204 followed. 1988 JLJ 647 and AIR 1949 FC 111 distinguished. [Paras 34 & 40
(5) Factories Act, 1948 -- Ss. 2 (ia), 2 (n), 7 (1)(f) and 7 (5) -- company employer -- directors, anyone director or even occupier of the factory are responsible to make payment of back wages to the employees. (1996) 6 SCC 665 and 1991 Supp. (I) SCC 204 followed. 1988 JLJ 647 and AIR 1949 FC 111 distinguished. [Paras 34 & 40
(6) Payment of Wages Act, 1936 -- S. 15 (2) -- company employer -liquidation proceedings commenced -- employees/worker are still entitled to have remedy available to them under statute for getting the wages. SLP (C) 6528/95 followed, [Para 44
(7) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- S. 31 -- application filed by representative union pending -- Payment of Wages Authority can still adjudicate matter of payment of wages to the employees of factory. 1966 JLJ 1091 and 1983 MPLJ SN 46 relied on. [Para 46
(8) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 25-O and 25-O (7) -- application under S. 25-O filed by representative union rejected -- disputed matter decided finally in various other litigation -- review against rejection of application becomes in fructuous. 1996 Lab IC 1061 (SC) followed. [Para 47
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && nksuksa vuqPNsnksa ds v/khu Qkby dh xbZ ;kfpdk && vihy dk vuqdYih mipkj miyC/k gksus ds ,dek= dkj.k ls [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 9À ¼2½ etnwjh lank; vf/kfu;e] 1936 && /kkjk 15¼2½ ¼e/;izns‘k eas ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½ && izkf/kdkjh dh ‘kfDr;k¡ && vf/kd O;kid gS && og izR;sd lacaf/kr fLFkfr esa fuiV djrk gS && mu O;fDr;ksa ls vis{kk dj ldrk gS ftudk drZO; ns; etnwjh dk lank; djuk gS && vko‘;d funs‘k ns ldrkA ¿ iSjk 28À ¼3½ etnwjh lank; vf/kfu;e] 1936 && /kkjk 15¼2½] 4 rFkk 5 && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu izkf/kdkjh && dkuwuh vof/k ds Hkhrj lank; ugh fd, tkus ij fu;r vFkok fofgr etnwjh ds lank; dk vkns‘k nssus dh vf/kdkfjrk gS && etnwjh ds lank; ds fy, mÙkjnk;h O;fDr dks lank; djus ds fy, rnuqlkj fufn"V fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 970 rFk , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 590 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 29 rFkk 30À ¼4½ etnwjh lank; vf/kfu;e] 1936 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 15¼2½ && daiuh fu;kstd && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu izkf/kdkjh] funs‘kdksa vFkok fdlh ,d funs‘kd ;k dkj[kkus ds vf/kHkksxh ls deZpkfj;ksa ds fiNys osru dk lank; djus ds fy, vis{kk dj ldrk gSA ¼1996½6 ,l lh 665 rFkk 1991 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 204 vuqlfjrA 1988 ts ,y ts 647 rFkk , vkb vkj 1949 ,Q lh 111 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 34 rFkk 40À ¼5½ dkj[kkuk vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 2¼
¼6½ etnwjh lank; vf/kfu;e] 1936 && /kkjk 15¼2½ && daiuh fu;kstd && ifjlekiu dk;Zokgh izkjHk && deZpkjh@deZdkj rc Hkh etnwjh izkIr djus ds fy, mudks dkuwu ds v/khu miyC/k mipkj izkIr djus ds gdnkj gSA ,l ,y ih ¼flfoy½ 6528@95 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 44À
¼7½ vkS|ksfxd laca/k vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 31 && izfrfuf/k la?k }kjk Qkby vkosnu yafcr && etnwjh lank; izkf/kdkjh rc Hkh dkj[kkus ds deZpkfj;ksa dks etnwjh ds lank; ds ekeys dk U;k;fu.kZ;u dj ldrk gSA 1966 ts ,y ts 1091 rFkk 1983 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 46 voayfcrA ¿ iSjk 46À
¼8½ vkS|ksfxd laca/k vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 25.k rFkk 25.k ¼7½ && izfrfuf/k la?k }kjk /kkjk 25.k ds v/khu Qkby vkosnu [kkfjt && fooknxzLr fo"k; vU; eqdnesa esa vafre :i ls fofuf‘pr && vkosnu dh [kkfjth ds fo#) iqufoZyksdu fu"izHkkoh gks tkrk gSA 1996 ysc vkb lh 1061 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 46À
Tripathi, J. -- 1. These two appeals are interconnected and they can be disposed of by a common judgment. They are taken up together. L.P.A. No. 54/97 shall be the leading case.
2. These are two appeals which have been presented against the judgment and order dated 22.1.1997 passed in writ petitions No. 619, 1066, 1074, 1093, 1058 and 1065 of 1994. All these petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding therein that the petitioners have alternative statutory remedy under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, and as such, the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were not maintainable.
3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that no L.P.A. lies against an order rejecting the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the learned Single Judge. This preliminary point was taken up earlier and has been decided by us vide order dated 31.3.1997. We adopt the same order which is on record for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals.
4. The petitioners-appellants had filed various writ petitions as referred above challenging the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that they were not entertain-able under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In these appeals, the appellants pray that the order of Single Judge be set aside and the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority be quashed or in the alternative the matter be remanded back to the Payment of Wages Authority for redecision of the matter in accordance with law.
5. In brief the facts of the case are as put forward in the memo of appeals that the petitioners-appellants had filed various writ petitions against the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Gwalior in the cases referred in Annexure P-1. The orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority dated 27.4.1993 are Annexures P-2 and P-3. The applications were also presented by the Payment of Wages Inspector before the Magistrate First Class, Labour Court No.1, Gwalior under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Form 9 as prescribed was not properly presented by the Payment of Wages Inspector which is Annex. P-4. It was mandatory for the Inspector to mention the names of the persons for whose wages the petitions were filed. Here reference made in the pro-forma could not show that there was any violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act on the part of the appellants. Under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, only those employees are covered by these provisions whose wages are not beyond Rs. 1,600/- per month. The allegation of the Payment of Wages Inspector was that the application was being made on behalf of employees of J.C. Mills Ltd., which is a public limited company and a body corporate. In that application, J.C. Mills Ltd. was not made a party. The present appellants No.2 to 9 were made parties as Directors of the J.e. Mills Limited Company. The return was filed as Annexure P-5. The various applications have been referred with their particulars in para 3 of the memo of appeal which need not be repeated. A number of petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants were also referred earlier in the memo of appeal which were said to have been 22 in number. It is alleged by the appellants that those petitions were heard by Hon'ble Shri T.S. Doabia, J. sitting singly and were decided on 20.8.1996. A copy of the said order is Annexure P-6. Hon'ble Shri Doabia, J. had turned down objection that the petitions could not be maintainable' in view of the fact that there was an alternative remedy under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The learned Single Judge had remanded those cases before the Payment of Wages Authority for fresh consideration. These petitions are enumerated in para 4 of the memo of appeal which need not be repeated.
6. The appellants further alleged that Hon 'ble Shri Doabia, J. has clearly he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
