Allahabad High Court
Anod Plasma Spray Limited vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 May, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13765 of 2022 Petitioner :- Anod Plasma Spray Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Challenge has been raised to the notice dated 18.04.2022 issued to the petitioner, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') claiming wages under the Notification No. 4/2016/873/Thirty Six-1-2016-549(S.T.)/84 dated 14.09.2016.
3. On facts, it has been submitted, the said notification does not apply to the petitioner as it is not an engineering industry. In that view of the matter, it has been submitted, there exists no jurisdiction with the payment of wages authority to entertain the claim directly in face of provision of clause 18 of the above described Government Order dated 14.09.2016.
4. On query made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, no objection has yet been raised by the petitioner as to jurisdiction of the payment of wages authority to issue notice 18.04.2022.
5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is found to be pre-mature with respect to the challenge raised to the jurisdiction. Basic fact denial has yet not been made by the petitioner and objection as to assumption of jurisdiction has yet not been raised.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction, in case, the petitioner files written objection to the notice dated 18.04.2022 supported by proper affidavit of the authorised personnel, within a period of two weeks from today alongwith a copy of this order, the said respondent no.2 shall necessarily make a preliminary order as to existence or otherwise of its jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.
7. In that, subject to the petitioner filing such objection, the respondent authority may first consider whether the petitioner admits applicability of the Notification No. 4/2016/873/Thirty Six-1-2016-549(S.T.)/84 dated 14.09.2016. In case, the petitioner disputes the applicability of that notification (as has been stated in the writ petition), the said respondent shall further record his reasons as to existence or otherwise of its jurisdiction in view of specific clause 18 of the aforesaid notification, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the objection.
8. Only in the event of such objection of the petitioner being rejected by a reasoned and speaking order, the respondent shall thereafter proceed to fix appropriate date for filing of reply on merits, leading of evidence and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Abhilash