Allahabad High Court
M/S. Triveni Engineering Industries ... vs The Dy. Labour Commissioner Saharanpur ... on 1 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38272 of 2003 Petitioner :- M/S. Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. Respondent :- The Dy. Labour Commissioner Saharanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabodh Gaour,Diptiman Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S. Chaterjee Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. 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 06.09.2002 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 14.01.1995 and he resigned from his post as a Welfare Officer on 26.07.1998, 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 30.06.2000 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. 14.01.1995 to 24.05.1998. A prayer was made by the respondent No.3 that the aforesaid payment along with interest be realized from the petitioner-establishment.
4. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Sharanpur Division Sharanpur, vide order impugned dated 11.08.2003, 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 01.09.2003 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. Vs. 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 recovery officer and he has to ascertain himself whether and to what extent, the workmen are entitled to the wages and then issue or refuse to issue the certificate. The inquiry that Labour Commissioner conducts for the purposes is, thus, of a quasi-judicial nature. The Labour Commissioner has to satisfy himself that occupier of the industrial establishment concerned is in default of payment of wages and that the wage bill in respect of which the default is complained of exceeds Rs.50,000. A hearing is required to be given to the occupier of the industrial establishment on the claim made to satisfy himself by the Labour Commissioner. Ultimately, it concluded that whether the certificate is issued or not, the parties' remedy to approach an appropriate forum for adjudication of their claim is not taken away. "
9. Learned counsel has placed further reliance upon another judgment of this Court in the case of J.H.V. Distillery and Sugar Mill Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner, U.P. Gorakhpur and others 2014(8) ADJ 425 with special reference to paragraph No. 10 same which reads as follows:
"10. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that mere mention in the Rule 22 of the U.P. Factories Welfare Officer Rules that the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 would also apply in the case of Welfare Officers does not mean that a Welfare Officer can invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act even if a dispute as conceived by the Act, 1978, does not exist. The Apex Court in Modi Industries Ltd (supra) had clearly laid down that the Act is not meant to provide a remedy for the default in payment of wages of individual workman."
10. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the Hotel and Restaurant Karmchari Sangh v. Gulmarg Hotel and others : 2006 (5) SCC 442 where, in paragraph 7, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"It will thus be clear from the preamble, the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the provisions of the Act that, firstly, the Act has been placed on the statute-book to ensure timely payment of wages by the bigger establishments, the incidence of disturbance of industrial peace being greater in such establishments on account of the default in payment of wages. Secondly, the Act deals with defaults in payment of the wage bill of all the workmen in the establishment. It is not meant to provide a remedy for the default in payment of wages of individual workmen. That can be taken care of by the provisions of the Wages Act which provisions are found inadequate to ensure timely payment of wages of the whole complement of workmen in an establishment. Thirdly, it is not in respect of the default in payment of every wage bill; but only if a wage bill exceeds Rs 50,000 the Labour Commissioner can be approached under the Act for redressal of the grievance. Fourthly, the Act is not applicable to all establishments but only to those establishments which produce, process, adopt or manufacture some articles. It will, therefore, be evident that the Act does not supplant or substitute the Wages Act but supplements the said Act, in the limited area viz. where the establishment, as stated above, (i) produces, processes, adopts or manufactures some articles, (ii) where there is a default in the wage bill of the entire such establishment, and (iii) where such wage bill exceeds Rs 50,000. The object of the Act as stated above is not so much to secure payment of wages to individual workmen but to prevent industrial unrest and disturbance of industrial peace on account of the default on the part of the establishment in making payment of wages to their workforce as a whole. It appears that many establishments had a tendency to delay the payment of wages to their workmen and were playing with the lives of the workmen with impunity. This naturally led to a widespread disturbance of industrial peace in the State. Hence the legislature felt the need for enacting the present statute. This being the case, the inquiry by the Labour Commissioner contemplated under Section 3 of the Act is of a very limited nature viz. whether the establishment has made a default in timely payment of wages to its workmen as a whole when there is no dispute that the workmen are entitled to them."
11. The aforesaid decisions of this Court place heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., ALR 1994 Supreme Court 536 where it has been held that a mere mention in the Rule 22 of the U.P. Factories Welfare Officer Rules that the provisions of the Act of 1978 would also apply in the case of Welfare Officers does not mean that a welfare Officer can invoke the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) held that the said Act is not meant to provide a remedy for the default in payment of wages to the individual workman.
12. In view of the above, I am not inclined to take a different view in the matter as the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above noted authorities. It is not a case where all or many workmen of the petitioner-industry jointly invoked the provisions of Section 3 for any arrears of salary/ wages etc., rather dispute was raised by means of application moved by the respondent No.3 in his individual capacity relying upon the aforesaid 9th Amendment Rules of 2000.
13. In view of the above, the application moved by respondent No.3 is found to be not maintainable and consequently the writ petition succeeds and is allowed quashing the order impugned dated 11.08.2003 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner as well as the recovery certificate; no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Anurag/-