U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. ... vs Rajendra Kumar Srivastava And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1313 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 23
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 1616 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. Through Executive Enginner
 
Respondent :- Rajendra Kumar Srivastava And Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- B.N.Misra
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,C.L. Yadav,Chandra Shekhar,S.C. Sitapuri
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Abhay Mishra holding brief of Sri B.N. Mishra who appears for the petitioner. Sri Amitabh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 4. 

Respondents made a complaint regarding non-payment of their wages. The said complaint has been decided by the Deputy Labour Commissioner in exercise of powers under the Payment of Wages Act vide order 9.2.2010 and a direction has been issued to the employers to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- within a month.

The aforesaid order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

The operation of the above order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 26.3.2010 subject to  petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of one month.

In compliance of the above interim order petitioner has deposited the aforesaid amount.

Respondents no. 1 and 2 have applied for release of the above amount/withdrawal of the same on the ground that they are workers of the petitioner and they have not been paid their wages. On account of this, they are suffering irreparable loss and injury.

Shri Abhay Misra contends that the proceedings initiated by the respondents no. 1 and 2 were barred by res-judicata.

This is an aspect which is to be considered at the time of adjudication of the petition.

Sri Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has opposed the release of the amount in favour of respondents no. 1and 2 on the ground that they are not the employees/workers of respondent no. 4 but since respondent no. 4 was a party before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the award would be treated as binding upon him also and once the payment is made to respondents no. 1 and 2, part of the amount may be recovered from respondent no. 4. 

Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner alone. It has not been deposited by respondent no. 4. In the event the said amount is permitted to be withdrawn by respondents no. 1 and 2 who have been held to be entitle to the same, no prejudice or loss is going to be suffered by respondent no. 4. In view of the above, I do not think that the objection raised by respondent no. 4 is sustainable.

The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this court as such is permitted to be withdrawn by respondents no. 1 and 2 on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, other than cash and bank guaranttee. 

Withdrawal Applications No. 53997 of 2010 and 11587 of 2011 stand disposed of.

Order Date :- 25.4.2013

SKS