District Rural Development Agency vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Petitioner has sought indulgence of the Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated

May 12, 1997 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kupwara as Authority under Payment of Wages Act (for short the Act) in the claim

petition titled Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat v. Project Officer whereby an ex parte award to the tune of Rs. 59,000/- came to be passed in favour of

the applicant respondent No. 3 herein read with order dated July 14, 1998 passed by District Judge, Kupwara in appeal titled Project Officer v.

Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat. The brief facts of the case are to be noticed:

Respondent No. 3, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Bhat filed a claim petition before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act - Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Kupwara with the averments that he came to be appointed/engaged by the management, but the petitioners-non-applicants failed

to pay wages to him which constrained him to invoke jurisdiction of the Authority under the Act. ex parte award came to be passed. Feeling;

aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before District Judge, Kupwara which came to be dismissed vide order dated July 14, 1998 on the

ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the requirement of Section 17(1-A) of the Act. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners

have questioned the same before this Court through the medium of this writ petition on the grounds taken in the writ petition and prayed for

quashment of the same.

It is specifically averred that the petitioners have not efficacious and alternate remedy available. The question is whether the petitioner has

efficacious and alternate remedy available? The answer is in affirmative for the following reasons:

The aim and object of the Payment of Wages Act is to pass effective orders for the redressal of grievances of workman and if on fact it is found

that the wages of a workman have been withheld or employer has acted in such a manner which is apparently detrimental to the employee. The

authorities, who are under the relevant laws administering the social justice for the working class, cannot be held to be helpless in granting relief in

appropriate cases.

If an award is passed in favour of the employee, the employer-the aggrieved person can file an appeal in terms of Section 17 of the Act subject

to fetters and restrictions. It is profitable to reproduce Section 17(1)(a) hereunder:

Appeal- (1) An appeal against an order dismissing either wholly or in part an application made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15, or against

a direction made under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of that Section may be preferred, within thirty days of the date on which the order or

direction was made, in a Presidency-town before the Court of Small Causes and elsewhere before the District Court:

(a) by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages u/s 3, if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and

compensation exceeds three hundred rupees or such direction has the effect of imposing on the employer or the other person a financial liability

exceeding one thousand rupees....

5A. As per mandate of this provision of law, the appellant has to annex a certificate to the effect that it has deposited the amount payable under the

award, appealed against. The aim of this Section is to ensure that the wages/awarded amount is to be deposited before the authority before filing

the appeal and appeal can only there-after be competent. It has social purpose and object behind it, i.e. to save the labourer from the social evils.

If appeal is filed without certificate, it is incompetent, ineffective and incomplete.

Appellant in the instant case preferred appeal without the requisite certificate came to be rejected. Instead of challenging the said order, by way

of revision in terms of Section 115 of the C.P.C., filed this writ petition with the averment that efficacious remedy was not available to the

appellant, which is not correct. This writ petition has been filed with the sole aim of giving a slip to law and to come out of rigour of Section 17(1)

(a) of the Act. It is beaten law that where efficacious remedy is available, writ is not maintainable. I am fortified in my view by Apex Court

judgment titled U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, , wherein their lordships have

held that where alternate remedy is available, writ is not maintainable. It is profitable to reproduce para 17 of the judgment, hereunder:

The only reason given by the High Court to finally dispose of the issues in its writ jurisdiction which appears to be sustainable, is the factor of delay,

on the part of the High Court in disposing of the dispute. Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest

opportunity of that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court. Since the objection is one in the nature of a demurer. Nevertheless even

when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when

there is a delay, short circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed the factual controversies, which have arisen in this case remain

unresolved. They must be resolved in a manner, which is just and fair to both the parties. The High Court was not the appropriate forum for the

enforcement of the right and the learned single Judge in Anand Prakash 's case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief.

This Court had an occasion to deal with an identical question in case Faqir Chand v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act 1988 KLJ 223

and has held that the writ/jurisdiction cannot be substituted for the ordinary remedy of appeal provided under a particular statute as in the instant

case u/s 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. It is profitable to reproduce para 4 of the judgment hereunder:

...The object of the Labour Laws is to pass effective orders for the redress of grievances of workmen and if on facts it is found that a workman

had been deceived or forced to enter into some alleged compromise against his wishes which is apparently to his detriment, the authorities under

the laws particularly administering the social justice for the working class cannot be held to be helpless in granting relief in appropriate cases, as

was done by the respondent No. 1 in the instant case on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court Satrughan Isser Vs. Smt. Subujpari and

Others, . The writ jurisdiction cannot be substituted for the ordinary remedy of appeal provided under a particular statute as in the instant case

Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The question raised by the petitioner could have been raised by him before the passing of the final order

before the appellate authority if he still felt aggrieved. The petitioner has tried to overreach the arms of] law by not filing a regular appeal in

accordance with the provisions of law after compliance of pre-requisite conditions.

Same view has been taken by Allahabad High Court in case Vishwamitra Karyalaya Press Vs. Authority appointed under Payment of Wages

Act, 1936 for Kanpur and Others, .

Otherwise also, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that; petitioners have not challenged the constitutional validity of Section

17(1)(a) of the Act. Without satisfying the mandate of Section 17(1) of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable, rather it was ineffective,;

incomplete and not competent. Without complying with the mandate of law, writ came to be filed in order to avoid the deposit of awarded amount,

which is against the mandate of Payment of Wages Act. ;

The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed as disputed questions of facts have been raised therein which cannot be gone into by this Court.

The disputed questions are whether wage of the petitioner-claimant was Rs. 125/- or Rs. 1000/- per month.

The Apex Court in case State of Karnataka and Others Vs. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and Others, has held that when

serious question of fact is involved, that cannot be gone into by the writ Court. It is profitable to reproduce relevant para of the judgment hereunder

at p. 700 of LLJ:

In a case of this nature, where serious disputed questions fact were raised, in our opinion, it was not proper for the High Court to embark

thereupon an exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court in its judgment relied upon a large number of decisions of this Court,

inter alia, in Reserve Bank of India (supra) and State Bank of India and Others Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle)

and Others, . ignoring the fact that all such disputes were adjudicated in an industrial adjudication.

Same view was taken by the Apex Court in case Antonio S.C. Pereira v. Ricardina Noronha (D) by L.Rs.AIR 2006 SCW 5155.

In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMPs.