Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46063 of 2013 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh Respondent :- Prescribed Authority/ Asstt. Labour Commissioner And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumati Rani Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Singh
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Smt. Sumati Rani Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 to 12 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.08.2011, 26.11.2012 and 05.02.2013.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents no. 4 to 12 initiated proceedings under Section 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the prescribed authority with the plea that their wages from 1.11.2010 to 31.12.2010 and from 1.1.2011 to 31.1.2011 i.e. total 92 days @ Rs. 200/- per day has not been paid to them and therefore, the prayer in the application was for a direction to the petitioner management to pay the applicants 'delayed wages' at an estimated Rs.18,400/- per person. The prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by the impugned order dated 30.8.2011 allowed the claim of the respondents no.4 to 12 and gave a direction that the said respondents shall be paid Rs. 1,84,000/- towards back wages and a like amount of Rs. 1,84,000/- towards damages with Rs. 500/- as cost, total Rs. 3,68,600/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner management filed a recall application dated 15.11.2011 taking the stand that the Respondents no. 4 to 11 were working in Himachal Pradesh in Village Raika near Jawalamukhi and that the initial order dated 30.8.2011 was an ex parte order and the petitioner has not received any notice. The Respondents no. 4 to 11 filed their objections and thereafter the prescribed authority by order dated 12.4.2012 recalled the order of 30.8.2011. Copy of the order sheet has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition which will show that the prescribed authority has held that all the preliminary issues shall also be decided at the time of the final hearing of the matter and thereafter by the other impugned order dated 26.11.2012 he has restored the earlier order of 30.8.2011. Thereafter he has issued the impugned recovery citation, Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prescribed authority has treated the application to be a case of deduction of wages whereas the specific claim of the Respondents no. 4 to 12 was with regard to delayed wages and therefore, the Respondents were not entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/- as a one time damage. The further submission is that even otherwise the calculation is wrong because there were only nine workers who had filed the application and, therefore, the amount instead of being Rs. 1,84,000/- would come to Rs.18,400/- per person calculated at 92 x 200 and the total amount would be Rs. 1,65,600/-. Therefore, even the calculation figure was wrong. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondents no. 4 to 12 in their application before the prescribed authority had never stated or disclosed as to where they were working whereas the petitioner in its restoration application has clearly stated that the Respondents no. 4 to 12 were working in Village Raika near Jawalamukhi in Himachal Pradesh. She submits that this fact has also been noted by the prescribed authority in its order dated 12.4.2012 wherein the prescribed authority has mentioned that the management had paid a cheque issued from the Punjab National Bank, Dehra, Himachal Pradesh which would go to show that the Respondents no. 4 to 12 were working in Himachal Pradesh and not in Uttar Pradesh.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in the objection filed on behalf of the Workmen to the recall application it was stated that they were working in Saharanpur. However, I find that in their objection there is only a bald statement that they were working in Saharanpur but it has not been disclosed as to where they were working.
Be that as it may, once the prescribed authority has taken the view in its order dated 12.4.2012 that the respondents were working in Himachal Pradesh, it had no jurisdiction beyond recalling its order and to fix futures date or even to pass the other impugned order or to issue recovery certificate of 5.2.2011. In fact the prescribed authority should have rejected the applicaton for want of jurisdicttion.
For reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 30.8.2011, 26.11.2012 and the recovery citation dated 5.02.2013 are quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
A direction is issued to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur-Respondent no.2 to refund the amount of Rs. 1 lakh deposited by the petitioner with it within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Kirti