M/S Sahara India Thru Auth. ... vs State Of Up Thru Prin Secy. Labour ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 5427 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Reserved										  AFR
 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 5003 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- M/S Sahara India Thru Auth. Signatory B.M. Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru Prin Secy. Labour Deptt. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avnish Pandey,Dhruv Mathur,R.K. Yadav
 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned orders dated 14.12.2017 and 09.02.2018 passed by respondent No.2 (Dpy. Labour Commissioner/ Prescribed Authority under U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1978').

2. An application was moved by one Shri Rishi Kumar Trivedi claiming himself to be the President of Sahariyan Kamgar Sangthan, Lucknow, U.P. through the General Secretary, Hind Majdoor Sabha, U.P., Lucknow on behalf of 159 workmen before the Prescribed Authority under the Act, 1978 stating therein that the employers of Sahara India, a registered partnership firm, Lucknow U.P. had not paid wages to these workmen from December, 2014 till March, 2015 and, after, since April, 2015 the employers had not paid full wages to these workmen, rather they had been paid token amount. Instead of making payment of the wages for the aforesaid period, the employers were harassing the employees/workmen which had resulted in apprehension of breach of industrial peace. It was further stated that Shri O.P. Srivastava, Deputy Managing Worker, Sahara India Ltd. and Shri A.K. Srivastava, Executive Director, Sahara India Ltd. were responsible for making payment of wages to the aforesaid workmen. Along with the application, a list of 159 workmen was also enclosed giving details of the names of the workers, their employees code and arrears of wages claimed.

3. On receipt of the said application, the Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow issued a notice to Shri O.P. Srivastava and Shri A.K. Srivastava requiring them to show cause as to why for non-payment of wages, recovery certificate should not be issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1978. Notice also required Shri O.P. Srivastava and Shri A.K. Srivastava to submit necessary information in form-III appended to the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Rules, 1981 (herein after referred to as ''the Rules, 1981").

4. Instead of submitting the reply pursuant to the notice dated 31.01.2017 and furnishing desired information in form-III, a reply dated 07.02.2017 was said to have been submitted by one Shri A.A. Zaidi describing himself to be the Deputy Chief Manager, Corporate, H.R., Sahara India Pariwar for Shri O.P. Srivastava, Deputy Managing Worker, and Shri A.K. Srivastava, Executive Director. In reply, it was stated that the provisions of the Act, 1978 and Rules made thereunder were not applicable in the case inasmuch as the establishment was not an ''industrial establishment" for the reason that it was neither a factory nor a workshop nor any other establishment in which any article was produced or processed or manufactured. Again on 28.02.2017 a letter was submitted by Shri A.A. Zaidi, describing himself as Deputy Chief Manager, Corporate, H.R., Sahara India Pariwar stating therein that against registration of Sahariyan Kamgar Sangthan, an objection had been raised on 07.12.2016 pursuant to which a show cause notice had been issued by the Registrar of Trade Union, U.P., and thus, the matter relating to valid registration of the said Trade Union was pending consideration and, therefore, application moved on behalf of Sahariyan Kamgar Sangthan did not appear to be lawful application.

5. On 17.03.2017 another reply was submitted by Shri A.A. Zaidi wherein it was again stated that the objection raised in the letter dated 07.02.2017 be disposed of before proceeding any further. It was further stated that the list of workers submitted did not contain any workman of "Rastriya Sahara or Printing Press" and in case they were employed with "Rastriya Sahara or Printing Press" they were competent to submit their claim personally or collectively. 

6. Sahariyan Kamgar Sangthan submitted its reply to the application/letter dated 07.02.2017 vide its application dated 23.02.2017 stating therein that Sahara India Pariwar was publishing a newspaper under the name and style of "Rastriya Sahara" and the press where the said newspaper was being printed belonged to the said establishment which was a factory and was covered by the Factories Act. It was also stated in the reply dated 23.02.2017 that the establishment had a Printing Press situated in Sundarbagh, Lucknow and a lot of material was published/printed in the said printing press and, further, Sahara India Pariwar was engaged in real estate business where construction of houses etc., was undertaken and also that in the para-banking division of the establishment, different businesses were being run where money was transacted. In view of the aforesaid, it was stated that the provisions of the Act, 1978 and Rules made thereunder were applicable. It was further said that Sahara India Pariwar had not stated as to what was its actual legal entity and what businesses was it running. It was said that objection dated 07.02.2017 taken on behalf of Sahara India Pariwar was to be rejected.

7. The Additional Labour Commissioner, thereafter, passed an order on 18.04.2017 for issuing a recovery certificate for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,41,10,595/-. It was said that 158/159 workmen had authorized Shri Rishi Kumar Trivedi to file claim on their behalf. The Additional Labour Commissioner considering the reply and objections submitted by the parties before him, in the order dated 18.04.2017 observed that during course of hearing, the opposite parties therein did not submit any clear reply and have only denied the applicability the provisions of Act, 1978 and Rules made thereunder. It was also observed that the opposite parties before the Additional Labour Commissioner did not reveal as to what activities or functions they were carrying on /discharging and in what manner they were exempted from provisions of the Act, 1978. It was further held that the opposite parties had not clearly rebutted the claim of the applicants and had not made any objection as to the demand raised in respect of arrears of wages and therefore, he accepted the claim of the applicants. Order dated 18.04.2017 by which certificate for recovering an amount of Rs.5,41,10,595/- was issued contained a list of the employees along with payable wages and arrears of wages.

8. After the order dated 18.04.2017 was passed, an application was moved to recall the said order on 08.05.2017, again by the same person, namely, Shri A.A. Zaidi stating therein that there was no evidence which could establish that the list submitted by the applicants contained the names of individuals, who were workmen of the establishment in question and the establishment was an ''industrial establishment'. It was also said that there was no evidence as to what was the amount of wages payable to the workmen and as to whether at the time of accepting the part payment, these individuals/workmen had made any objection or they had received the amount as full wages. The employer had made payment with the understanding of the workmen that the payment would not be treated as part payment. It was further said that order dated 18.04.2017 also did not give any finding as to whether the amount as claimed was within the definition of 'wages' under section 2(e) of the Act, 1978 or not. It was further said that in the list submitted by the applicants, four individuals at serial Nos.13, 32, 58 and 114 were not entitled to be paid back wages for the reason that the workmen mentioned at serial no.13 was mentioned twice i.e. at serial no.13 and at serial no.103. Similarly, the individual mentioned at serial No.32 had again been mentioned at serial No.100 and that the individual mentioned at serial No.58 had been mentioned at serial No.130 with different names of his father. The workman listed at serial no.114 had again been mentioned at serial No.154.

8. In view of the aforesaid application dated 08.05.2017, the Additional Labour Commissioner sent a corrected recovery certificate dated 30.05.2017 requiring the District Magistrate/Collector, Lucknow to recover an amount of Rs.5,17,74,595/- in place of initial amount of Rs.5,41,10,595/-.Another application dated 13.06.2017 was moved by one Shri Rohit Sharma describing himself to be Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Lucknow and authorized representative before the Additional Labour Commissioner stating therein that an objection was taken as to the maintainability of the application moved on behalf of the workmen, however, without passing any order on the said objection, the matter had been decided ex-parte on 18.04.2017, which had deprived the employers appropriate opportunity to put forth their defence. The applicant-Rishi Kumar Trivedi filed his reply/objection to the application dated 13.06.2017 stating therein that the order dated 18.04.2017 was passed after giving adequate and appropriate opportunity of hearing to the employers and that the matter had been decided after hearing both the parties and as such the application dated 13.06.2017 be rejected.

9. Thereafter, on 30.06.2017 again Shri Rohit Sharma describing himself to be an authorized person filed reply to the objection dated 20.06.2017 stating therein that the ex-parte order dated 18.04.2017 as modified on 30.05.2017 should be recalled/set aside and opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the opposite parties. An application was moved on 06.07.2017 by the applicant. In the said application dated 06.07.2017, it was pleaded that the word "limited" be expunged and accordingly, the order dated 18.04.2017 and the recovery certificate dated 25.04.2017 as amended on 30.05.2017 be corrected after deleting the word "limited" from the name of the opposite parties. 

10. The Additional Labour Commissioner thereafter, passed an order on 17.07.2017 observing therein that the wages under the Act were claimed against the Sahara India Ltd. and notices were issued to Sahara India Ltd. and accordingly the recovery certificate had also been issued against Sahara India Ltd. whereas the applicants had stated that by mistake ''Sahara India Ltd." had been impleaded as party in place of ''Sahara India" and as such the word "limited" be deleted from the name of opposite parties and recovery certificate be issued against M/s Sahara India. The Additional Labour Commissioner, thus, comes to the conclusion, while passing the order dated 17.07.2017, that it would not be appropriate to act upon the recovery certificate dated 30.05.2017; rather the matter required rehearing and thus, fixed 29.07.2017 for rehearing of the matter deferring recovery certificate dated 30.05.2017 till 29.07.2017.

11. Thereafter, the Additional Labour Commissioner passed fresh order dated 30.08.2017 after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. A perusal of the order dated 30.08.2017 would show that it mentioned the claim of the applicants and also of the recall application dated 13.06.2017 wherein it was stated that recovery certificate had been issued against Sahara India Ltd. whereas the workmen were not employed by Sahara India Ltd. The order further recites that it was contended on behalf of the workmen that ''Sahara India Ltd" had wrongly been arrayed whereas the fact was that all the workmen were employees of ''M/s Sahara India'".

12. A perusal of order dated 30.08.2017 would show that it noticed that 'Sahara India Pariwar' was not a legal entity but was an umbrella of various legal entities/ units. The employers have all along been adopting delaying tactics on technical grounds and did not make any submission nor did they furnish any details to the claim of the workmen. It was also observed that the employers had not declared the correct legal position of the entities of 'Sahara India Pariwar', accordingly, learned Additional Labour Commissioner held that the workmen were the employees of M/S Sahara India. Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs.5,17,74,595/- had thus, been issued.

13. The aforesaid order came to be challenged before this Court by Sahara India in Writ Petition No.21327(MS) of 2017. This Court vide judgment and order dated 03.10.2017 disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. It was observed that the complete confusion had been created by the employers. They did not furnish the requisite information in Form-III appended to the Rules and, therefore, it had not been possible for the Additional Labour Commissioner to have ascertained as to which particular legal entity was responsible for payment of wages claimed by the workmen. Recovery of wages under the provisions of the Act, 1978 could, however, be made only after ascertainment of the fact as to who was the employer of the workmen and who was the occupier, or otherwise who was responsible for making payment of wages. It was further said that the Additional Labour Commissioner had been given powers under Section 4 of the Act, 1978 of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath and compelling production of document.

14. The said writ petition was finally disposed of with following direction:-

"(i) The impugned order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow is hereby quashed.

(ii) Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow is directed to conduct the proceedings in respect of the grievance of the workmen afresh by ascertaining their employer and also by ascertaining the wage bill in accordance with law.

(iii) During the course of the proceedings to be drawn by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow or the Appropriate Authority for ascertainment of the wage bill and also for ascertaining correct employer of the workmen, it will be lawful for the authority concerned to require the petitioner to furnish correct and precise information within time to be stipulated for the said purpose by the Additional Labour Commissioner/Appropriate Authority.

(iv) In case it appears to the Additional Commissioner/Appropriate Authority that the petitioners are not cooperating in the proceedings by taking untenable grounds and are avoiding furnishing the information/material required for ascertainment of the employer and the wage-bill, the Additional Labour Commissioner/Appropriate Authority shall take all measures as are permissible for production of documents and attendance of any person before him in the proceedings in terms of provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1978, read with the relevant provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure including coercive measures.

(v) The proceedings under this order shall be completed by the Additional Labour Commissioner/Appropriate Authority within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(vi) The amount deposited by the petitioners under the order passed by this Court on 11.09.2017 shall remain deposited and in case any default in payment of wages is found by the Additional Labour Commissioner/Appropriate Authority in the proceedings to be drawn and concluded under this order, the same shall be utilized for the purposes of payment of such wages to the workmen concerned.

(vii) On ascertainment of default in payment of wages, if any, to the workmen by the Additional Labour Commissioner/Appropriate Authority in the proceedings to be conducted under this order, appropriate steps shall be taken by the authorities for timely recovery of the amount so ascertained.

(viii) If default in payment of wages is found/ascertained, the amount of such default shall be recovered by the authorities concerned, including the District Magistrate/Collector within six weeks from the date of such ascertainment by taking all possible measures, including coercive measures, and amount so recovered shall be paid to the workmen forthwith."

15. On remand by the High Court, the Additional Labour Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 after hearing the parties and considering the evidence and documents produced by them. Additional Labour Commissioner in the impugned order has held that the preliminary objections raised by the employers that Sahara India is not an 'Industrial Establishment' and that 53 workmen are not workmen as defined under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and, only four employees were getting pay less than Rs.18,000/- and, therefore, only four workmen would be covered under the Act, 1978 have no substance. It has been further observed that in the writ petition (Writ Petition No.21327 (MS) of 2017) also the employers had raised all these pleas, however, the High Court had rejected all these preliminary objections and no finding against order dated 30.08.2017 in respect of these objections had been given by the High Court in its order dated 03.10.2017. The High Court had only remanded the matter back to be decided afresh in accordance with directions contained in the said judgment and order.

16. Learned Additional Labour Commissioner in the impugned order has held that initially the petition was filed for recovery of wages in respect of 155 workmen for the period between December 2014 and December 2016. Out of these 155 workmen, 11 had taken their case back and thus, this present case remained in respect of 144 workmen. Then Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow vide order dated 30.11.2017 had accepted 107 workmen to be the employees of Sahara India which fact remained undisputed. In respect of remaining 37 workmen there was serious dispute and these 37 workmen have been directed to approach the competent Court for appropriate reliefs. In respect of 107 workmen, it has been held that on the basis of evidence available on record, they are entitled for payment of their wages for the period between December 2014 and December 2016 which amounts to Rs.3,36,16,757/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, in pursuance of the order passed by this court on 11.09.2017 in Writ Petition No.21327(MS) of 2017, employers have deposited Rs.2,07,09,838/- in the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner. Employers have been thus, directed to deposit remaining amount of Rs.1,29,06,919/- within a period of one week in the office of Additional Labour Commissioner, in case of failure, the recovery certificate would be issued.

17. The aforesaid order passed by Additional Labour Commissioner is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

18. Heard Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Dhruv Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents.

19. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 2(a) of 1978 Act defines 'Industrial Establishment' as under:-

"Industrial establishment" means any factory, workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, processed, adopted or manufactured with a view to their use, transport or sale"

20. Definition of 'wages' as per the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Act, 1978 is same as is defined in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and further definition of 'workmen' is assigned under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1978 as is defined under the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. She, therefore, submits that for entertaining an application under the Act, 1978, the Additional Labour Commissioner is required to satisfy himself that the employer is an 'Industrial Establishment' as defined under the Act, 1978 and the workmen are covered under the definition of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and their wages are also as defined in the payment of wages Act. If any of the aforesaid ingredients is missing, Additional Labour Commissioner should not have entertained the application.

21. It has further been submitted that under Section 3 of the Act, 1978, Additional Labour Commissioner assumes the jurisdiction only when the occupier of an industrial establishment is in default of payment of wages and the wage-bill in respect of such occupier in default exceeds Rs.50,000/-. It is said that the petitioner is neither a factory nor a workshop nor any such establishment where articles are produced, processed, adopted, manufactured with a view to their use, transport or sale and therefore, the petitioner is not an 'industrial establishment' as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, 1978.

22. She has further submitted that out of 107 workmen who had filed application, 53 employees were working in the capacity of the officers, executive or managers and have been discharging supervisory and managerial level of responsibility and, therefore, they are not covered under the definition of 'workmen' and their wages exceed the ceiling as defined under the Payment of Wages Act. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by Additional Labour Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

23. On the other hand, Mr. Dhruv Mathur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that Sahara India has various divisions under which carry out activities in the field of Finance, Industry, Marketing, Housing, Advertising, Mass Communication etc. Apart from this, it also owns and runs a printing press at Sunderbagh, Lucknow. The said printing press prints scheme forms, receipt books, green vouchers, canteen coupons which are used in all the divisions of M/s Sahara India. Thus, Sahara India is clearly an 'industrial establishment' as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act.

24. It is further submitted that this issue had already got settled by earlier order of the Additional Labour Commissioner and the said finding was not upset by the High Court vide order dated 03.10.2017. It is further submitted that the submission of the petitioner that certain employees who had approached Additional Labour Commissioner were not covered under the provisions of the Act, 1978, is wholly incorrect inasmuch as none of the persons in whose favour the impugned order has been passed, has been discharging supervisory and managerial functions.

25. The documents relied upon by the petitioner failed to show how many workmen are discharging managerial or supervisory functions. The nature of work assigned to these workmen was neither supervisory nor managerial. These workmen did not have any power for hiring or firing employees. Mere designation and salary would not be determinative of the fact whether a person is a workman or holding a managerial or supervisory post.

26. It is further submitted that under Section 3 of the 1978 Act, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the occupier of an industrial establishment is in default of payment of wages exceeding Rs.50,000/-, then it may issue a certificate in that regard specifying the amount of wages due from the industrial establishment. Thus, what is to be seen is whether the wage bill exceeds Rs.50,000/- or not. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1978 do not limit recovery in respect of wage which is below Rs.18,000/- per month. In absence of any such restriction or limitation having been prescribed by the statute, no such regulation can be read into the Act, 1978 to limit its applicability.

27. I have considered the submissions of the parties carefully and perused the record.

28. The petitioner has not denied the claim of amount in respect of 107 workmen in whose favour impugned order of recovery has been passed. The Additional Labour Commissioner vide order dated 09.02.2018 had dealt with all the contentions in respect of maintainability of the claim before him for recovery of wages under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1978 and findings had not been upset by this Court in its order dated 03.10.2017. This Court while disposing of writ petition filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 03.10.2017 had only directed the Additional Labour Commissioner to decide the case afresh keeping in view of the directions issued with the order dated 03.10.2017. The findings regarding petitioner being industrial establishment, the employees being covered within the definition of workmen etc., have attained finality and it is not open for the petitioner to again re-agitate those issues herein. However, this Court would like to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in this judgment as well.

29. It has specifically been held by Additional Labour Commissioner that Sahara India is running a printing press. Printing press would come within the definition of Industrial Establishment inasmuch as it produces articles, transport the same for sale etc. and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to say that Sahara India is not an 'Industrial Establishment' as defined under the Act.

30. The Supreme Court in the case of Hotel and Restaurant Karamhari Sangh versus Gulmarg Hotel and Ors : (2006) 5 SCC 442 while dealing with the provisions of the Act, 1978 its scope and applicability has held as under:-

6. In order to resolve the controversy between the parties, it is first necessary to examine the provisions of the Act. As the title of the Act itself suggests it has been enacted to secure industrial peace by ensuring timely payment of wages to the workmen. The preamble of the Act states that it is an Act to provide "in the interests of maintenance of industrial peace, for timely payment of wages in bigger industrial establishments and for matters connected therewith". The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act states that delays in payment of wages of workmen lead to simmering discontent among them. Sometimes a grave threat to law and order is also forced on this account. The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short "the Wages Act") have been found to be inadequate to ensure timely payment of wages. The incidence of disturbance of industrial peace being greater in comparatively bigger establishments, it was considered necessary to provide that if the wage bill in default exceeds Rs 50,000, the amount should be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Further, in order to curb the tendency of the employers to keep large amounts of wages in arrears, it was also necessary to make it a penal offence to be in default of a wage bill exceeding Rs 1 lakh.

7. 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.

31. While exercising the power under Section 3 of Act, 1978, Additional Labour Commissioner is only required to conduct an enquiry on three aspects; (i) whether the establishment is an 'industrial establishment' as defined under the Act, 1978, (ii) whether the workmen have paid wages as per the terms of their employment; and (iii) whether the arrears of wages so due, exceed Rs.50,000/-. If the Additional Labour Commissioner is satisfied on all three counts, then he is required to pass an order for recovery of wages due. In the present case the Additional Labour Commissioner after satisfying himself on all the counts, has passed the order for recovery of amount of wages due against workmen and the recovery certificate has been issued.

32. While exercising the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India this Court is not required to evaluate the evidence regarding a finding of fact which has been dealt with by the competent Court/authority. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that 57 workmen have performed managerial and supervisory functions which has been rejected by the Additional Labour Commissioner does not require to be considered by this Court. Section 3 of the Act, 1978 does not restrict the recovery of wages where the sealing limit is Rs.18,000/- If the unpaid wage will exceed Rs.50,000/-, the competent authority assumes jurisdiction and is authorised to pass order of recovery of the payment of wages. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of the petitioner that only those wages can be recovered under the Act of 1978 in respect of these workmen whose wages do not exceed to Rs.18,000/-.

33. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the present petition and, therefore, it is dismissed. Orders dated 14.12.2017 and 09.02.2018 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner are affirmed. If the petitioner fails to make payment of the remaining amount as directed by Additional Labour Commissioner, the Additional Labour Commissioner will take necessary steps for recovery of remaining amount as provided under the Act, 1978. After recovery of the aforesaid amount, the competent authority is directed to disburse the amount to the workmen in whose favour the impugned order has been passed.

Order Date:-02.07.2019

prateek