AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed by Union of India and others for quashing the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 30.12.1989 passed by respondent No. 5, Annexure No. 4 and 3 respectively, to the writ petition.
It appears that the respondents workmen were engaged by the petitioners on daily wages. Without any notice and opportunity they have been ousted from the service. As such they approached the Payment of Wages Authority on the ground that they were working but no notice of termination has been given, therefore, they will be deemed to be in service and they are entitled to the minimum wages, which is being paid to other similarly situated employees. The representative of the petitioner Union of India appeared before the authority below and had admitted this fact that while disengaging the respondents, as the employees had produced forged labour card, therefore, after an enquiry they have been ousted from the service. The Payment of Wages Authority has come to the conclusion that no notice or opportunity was given to respondents workmen and deduction in payment will be treated to be illegal and it has further been held that the representative of the employer has admitted this fact that respondents workmen have been disengaged on the ground that they have forged their labour card.
The Payment of Wages Authority has come to the conclusion after hearing both the parties that the petition filed by the employees is within time and admittedly the salary for which the workmen were entitled, had not been paid and the junior persons to the workmen have been retained in service. A further finding has been recorded that if there was something against the respondents workmen they were entitled to notice and opportunity and admittedly it was not given. In view of the aforesaid facts the Payment of Wages Authority vide his order dated 30.12.1989 has allowed the application and directed the Union of India petitioner to make certain payment for which the respondents workmen were entitled.
The Union of India petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an appeal. The appeal too has been dismissed holding therein that the Payment of Wages Authority has passed a reasoned order in accordance with law and has recorded a finding of fact that employees have completed 120 days continuous service and no order has been passed in writing to disengage the workmen, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit. The appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 4 vide its order dated 29.9.2004.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners Union of India has approached this Court. Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava appearing for the petitioners submits that being daily wagers the respondents workmen were not entitled to regular pay scale as held by the Payment of Wages Authority. The respondents workmen had got no right to approach the Payment of Wages Authority and the said Authority was not justified in granting the relief to the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of this Court reported in 1977 ALJ 538 (Om Prakash Goel v. Lakshmiratan Engr. Work Ltd. and Ors.). Placing reliance upon the judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Division Bench of this Court has held that if the employer bonafidely disputing the payment and payment is not being made it cannot be treated to be deduction of wages.
Learned Counsel for the respondents workmen has placed reliance upon a judgment of Delhi High Court reported in 1988 LIC 562 (Union of India v. Kameshwar Dubey and Ors.). Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the respondents workmen submits that if the employer denied his liability to pay the wages to the workmen, case is one of deduction of wages and cannot be treated to be a delayed payment.
Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in The Upper India Coupar Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. J.C. Mathur, . Placing reliance, learned Counsel submits that this judgment is based upon a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in which it has been held that the word "deductions" in Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act (1936) appears to be used in a wide sense so as to include the entire deficiency wyich the employee alleges to have been caused in the payment of wages. So it has been held that withholding the sum by the employer partly or wholly is unreasonable.
After hearing counsel for parties and from perusal of record it appears that the respondents workmen were engaged and they completed 120 days of service as daily wager but it appears that some forged labour card were produced as alleged by the petitioners, and upon that an enquiry was made behind the back of the respondents workmen and they have been ousted from the service. No order in writing was passed. This has been admitted by the representative of the employer petitioner, who appeared before the lower court. Even in the appellate order, the petitioners contended that "service were discharged with effect from 11.8.1986 on the ground that they forged their labour cards", meaning thereby that some stigma has been put upon the respondents workmen while terminating or disengaging them from service. In spite of the fact that petitioners'' contention is accepted that the respondents workmen were daily wager but if some enquiry is being conducted putting a stigma upon them behind their back the order itself is bad. The respondents workmen were entitled to notice and opportunity to put their claim to establish whether they have produced forged labour card or not. As admitted by the petitioners themselves before the authorities below, no notice or opportunity has been given and the enquiry held was behind the back of the respondents workmen. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities were of the opinion that this is not permissible under the law as such the application for the purpose of payment was allowed and appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that orders passed by the authorities below is perfectly just and proper and writ petition has got no merit as such it is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.