Delhi District Court
Sh. Anil Kumar Panghal (Pahalwan) vs M/S S. Sabharwal & Co on 7 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT: POLC.V:
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI
PWA No.43/09
Unique Case ID No.02402C0284272009
In the matter of :
Sh. Anil Kumar Panghal (Pahalwan)
S/o Sh. Prithi Singh
R/o Village Bakargarh,
Post Office Ujwa, Delhi.
.........Applicant
VERSUS:
1. M/s S. Sabharwal & Co.
Through its owner Sh. S. Sabharwal
1E/16 Ram Tirath Mission,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi 110 005.
2. Shri Sanjay Jaggi (Manager)
M/s S. Sabharwal & Co.
1E/16 Ram Tirath Mission,
Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi 110 005.
......Managements
Date of Institution : 10.09.2009
Date of reserving order : 07.03.2015
Date of pronouncement : 07.03.2015
ORDER :
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application u/s 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 filed by the workman for seeking recovery of earned wages.
2. Briefly stated that case of the workman is that the management is engaged in a business of providing recovery services to various banks and that it has more than 200 workmen working for it. The PWA No.43/09 1/7 workman claims that he was appointed by the management on 01.05.2006 at a monthly salary of Rs.6000/ per month for field job and that as a part of his job, he also prepared record of recovered vehicle (Motorcycles) for depositing the same at the Garage of HDFC Bank maintained by Ram Sangi Motors near Metro Station, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The workman has alleged that on 28.02.2007 he was verbally told by the management that his services have been terminated w.e.f 01.03.2007 and that at that time, his salary for November December 2006, and January February 2007 was still unpaid by the management and that the management neither paid him his unpaid salary, nor gave him any compensation for illegal termination of his services. The workman has stated that he made a complaint to police at P.S. Paharganj and that pursuant to his complaint, both the managements no.1 & 2 were called, however, the managements connived with the local police and made workman sign a compromise, whereby only a sum of Rs.8000/ was paid to the workman and that in this manner, workman was not only denied of his full earned wages but also P.F. contribution. The workman has also mentioned about filing of an application U/Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was dismissed on 06.06.2009 by Sh. A. S Jayachandra, then POLCXVII, Karkardooma, Delhi and has stated that he has filed present application after dismissal of his said application. The workman has prayed that the management be directed to pay his earned wages in the sum of RS.24,000/ Provident contribution from May 2006 to October 2006 @ Rs.1000/ per month alongwith interest @12% per annum from 01.03.2007 till the date of the payment.
3. The management no.1 has contested the claim of the claimant by filing a detailed written statement. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application of the claimant has been taken interalia on the ground that the claimant had earlier also filed an PWA No.43/09 2/7 identical claim under Sec.33C(2) of I. D Act before the Ld. Labour Act, which was dismissed vide order dt. 06.06.2009 and since the claimant has raised identical issues in the present proceedings, his claim is not maintainable. The claim filed by the claimant has also been challenged on the ground of limitation and want of employeremployee relationship between the management and the claimant. It is stated that the claimant was engaged by one Sh. Sanjay Jaggi and not the present management. It is further stated that notwithstanding the fact that this court is notified authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the court does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue of existence of employer employee relationship in the present proceedings. The claim in respect of the provident fund is further challenged on the ground that here is a separate forum provided under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for aggrieved employee to take recourse to and hence, claim qua the same is not maintainable in these proceedings. As regards the forcible settlement, it is stated that it is the management which had been forced to pay a sum of Rs.8000/ to the claimant in order to maintain good relations and to buy peace, even though the claimant never worked for it. Rest of the averments made in the application of the claimant have also been controverted on merits.
4. The management no.2 has also filed its detailed reply wherein, like management no.1, the claim of the claimant has been challenged on the ground resjudicata, limitation, want of employee employer relationship and choice of wrong forum for preferring claim of alleged dues of provident fund.
5. The workman has filed joint rejoinder to the replies filed on behalf of management no.1 & 2, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in his application.
PWA No.43/09 3/76. On 10.02.2011, as per pleadings of the parties, Ld. Predecessor framed the issues in the matter and the following issue no.1 was directed to be treated as preliminary issue :
1.Whether the application U/Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act filed by the applicant/workman is maintainable and is not barred by the resjudicata ? OPW
7. I have heard arguments of both the parties and perused the record and my finding on the preliminary issue is as under : As asserted by the claimant and further admitted by the managements this court is the designated court under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as PWA Act) and per se has jurisdiction to decide an application U/Sec.15(2) of PWA Act. The issue which arises for consideration is, whether the application filed by the applicant/workman is barred by resjudicata in view of the findings given by the labour court on 06.06.2009, whereby an application U/Sec.33C(2) filed by the applicant/workman, wherein he had raised an identical claim was dismissed. When the scheme of the PWA Act is examined, there is no doubt that the authority exercising jurisdiction under 15(2) PWA Act has limited jurisdiction. It is only an ascertained sum which can be ordered to be paid under this Section. Further claimant can file an application U/Sec.15(2) of Payment of Wages Act only on basis of a preexisting right or corresponding obligation of the employer for such payment. I am supported in my view by judgment in case of "D.C.M Ltd Vs. Prescribed Authorities (Payment of Wages Act) Meerut and Ors, LLJ 1997(1) Page 56, wherein relying up judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "Ujjain Vs. Suraj Mal Metha & Anr", it was held that : "Para 8 :Law in this regard has been categorically laid down by the Supreme Court in Payment of Wages Inspector, Ujjain Vs. Suraj Mal Metha & Anr,, 1969ILLJ762, While interpreting the scope of the proceedings under Section 15 of the PWA No.43/09 4/7 Payment of Wages Act, the Supreme Court has laid down that when in an application under Section 15 (2) claiming compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act, the defence taken by the exemployer was that the person responsible for payment of compensation and that the right of workman was defeated by reason of provision of Section 25FF being applicable, in view of the limited jurisdiction of the authority under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, it was not intended to deal with such questions, which in some cases might raise complicated problems of both facts and law. What has been observed as a principle in the matter of claim under Section 25FF before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, is equally applicable to a case where claim is based on deduction of wages. Supreme Court further observed in the above noted authority that where a right of workman was disputed by his employer, the Labour court can go into the question as to whether he had s right to receive such a benefit".
"Para .11 : In the instant case as already stated above, there is a serious dispute between the parties as to whether the respondents are employees of the petitioner or of the contractor. The prescribed authority, the respondent no.1 has decided the question of existence of relationship of employer and employee in the affirmative in favour of respondents by referring to the evidence led before him, but since it was not merely an incidental question rather went on the very root of the matter, and required in depth inquiry and consideration of questions of law and facts, the same could not be decided in summary proceedings under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, rather could validly be a subject of reference to a Labour court under the Provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, such court possessing wider powers for deciding the contentious question of the nature raised in this case".
From the above mentioned judgment, it is apparent that an application under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act cannot be PWA No.43/09 5/7 entertained, when there is no predetermination of the question regarding the entitlement of the applicant.
In the present case, the applicant/ workman had preferred to file his claim under Sec.33C 2) of Industrial Disputes Act in the first instance. Perusal of order dt.06.06.2009, whereby the said application/claim of the applicant/workman was dismissed reveals that a specific issue, besides other issues, regarding the maintainability of the application Sec.33C 2) of Industrial Disputes Act was framed in the said proceedings. The parties thereafter, led their evidence on the issues and further addressed arguments, which culminated in dismissal of application Sec.33C 2) of Industrial Disputes Act filed by the applicant/workman vide order dt. 06.06.2009. While deciding the issue of jurisdiction, the concerned labour court also embarked upon inquiry into several incidental issues and gave observations that :
1. No appointment letter could be produced by the workman.
2. There was variance in the pleadings and the documents produced by the workman, more particularly, his date of appointment as mentioned in his application and his complaint dt.09.11.2006.
3. The identity card of the workman shows that it was issued on 01.7.2007 and was only valid for 20 days
4. No documentary evidence had been led by the workman to establish the relationship, the nature of employment and the quantum of wages.
5. The workman had admitted in his crossexamination about having settled the matter with the management.
6. The workman had further admitted in his crossexamination that he had worked with one Sh. Sanjay Jaggi.
Thereafter, the application filed by the applicant/workman Sec.33C 2) of Industrial Disputes Act was further dismissed on the PWA No.43/09 6/7 ground of jurisdiction vide order dt. 06.06.2009. It is noteworthy, the observations made by Sh. A. S. Jaya Chandra, Ld. POLCXVII, KKD, Delhi, in his order dt. 06.06.2009 have not been challenged by the applicant/workman till date by filing any appeal etc.
8. The observations given by the concerned labour court, as detailed hereinabove, form integral part of the inquiry, which would necessarily be required to be undertaken by this court while disposing of the application under 15(2) of PWA Act filed on behalf of the applicant/workman and hence any such inquiry would be barred by res judicata since the order dt 06.06.2009 and observations made therein have now attained finality.
In view of the aforesaid observation, the application filed by the workman under Payment of Wages Act is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (ILLA RAWAT)
On 7th March, 2015 POLC.V:KKD:DELHI
PWA No.43/09 7/7