Delhi High Court
Saroj Kumar Jha vs Commissioner Workmens ... on 1 June, 2018
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 01st June, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 6304/2018
SAROJ KUMAR JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
with the petitioner in person.
versus
COMMISSIONER WORKMENS COMPENSATION & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, ASC, GNCTD.
Mr.Umesh Sharma, CGSC for UOI
with Mr.Abhinav Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M.24251/2018 (exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6304/2018
3. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by which the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Quash or modify or set aside Section 1 (6) of the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 to the extent so that it covers all the
workers/employees/labourers or by whatsoever name the
workmen may be known as to be eligible to be able to raise their
grievances under the Payment of Wages Act for the non-
payment of the wages.
(ii) Pass an order directing the authorities under the Payment of
Wages Act to adjudicate the complaints/representation/
grievances received by them to be adjudicated in a time bound
manner and maximum within a period of 30 days of the receipt
of the payment.
(iii) Pass an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the authorities to establish an online forum to redress the
complaints/grievances raised by workers/workmen/labourers via
the internet in a speedy and just manner.
(iv) Pass an order directing respondent no.1 and 2 to act on the
complaints/representations dated 18.12.2017 made by the
petitioner herein and dispose of the same and to ensure that the
respondents no.3 and 4 pay the wages and dues of the petitioner
at the earliest and for other directions.
4. The petition reveals that the petitioner was offered an appointment to
the post of 'Manager-Training & Sales Process' in the Sales
Department, Delhi vide letter of intent dated 30 th June, 2017 issued by
the respondent no.3. It is also claimed that pursuant to the above
offer, the petitioner joined the organization from 04.07.2017 and
performed all the duties and responsibilities assigned to him in the
most professional and honest manner. The petitioner also claims that
due to certain personal reasons, the petitioner resigned from the above
mentioned post on 23.08.2017 by sending an e-mail to Mr.Dinesh
Bansal, Vice President, HR & Admin with a copy of the same having
been sent to the CFO of the company and other officials. The
petitioner also claims that he has obtained clearance from all the
Departments concerning Accounts, Administration, Sales, IT etc. and
duly returned all the office assests and thereafter submitted the same to
the HR department. The complaint of the petitioner is that the
employer despite having been granted clearance to the petitioner,
withheld full and final settlement of the petitioners by sending a
fictitious and unsubstantiated letter dated 12.09.2017. The petitioner
also claims that after receiving the letter dated 12.09.2017, the
petitioner addressed several communications, written and verbal but
did not receive the full and final wages for the period he had worked.
It is also claimed that he had visited the office of the respondents no.3
and 4 on 06.11.2017 and thereafter a legal notice was also sent on
12.11.2017, which was replied to by the respondents no.3 and 4 on
21.11.2017. It is also claimed that the petitioner made a representation
to the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation seeking intervention
and for payment of backwages as per the Payment of Wages Act and
to ensure that the employees are not harassed for non-payment of
wages.
5. Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel enters appearance on an advance
copy and submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it
relates to a purely private dispute between the petitioner and his
employer. He submits that the communication dated 12.09.2017
discloses that the petitioner had not served for even one month
effective from the date of his resignation and the organization has
demanded one month salary from the petitioner which has led to filing
of the present writ petition. Mr.Ghose also submits that the petitioner
would not be covered under the provisions of the Minimum Wages
Act. Additionally, it is pointed out that writ petition raises disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be decided in this writ petition.
6. Mr.Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of India also submits
that it being a private dispute between the petitioner and the
respondents no.3 and 4, the petitioner has also sought a prayer to
modify and set aside Section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936
to the extent that it may cover all workers/employees/labourers or by
whatsoever name the workmen will be known as to be eligible.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that such a relief cannot
be sought in the present petition, especially when the petitioner has not
even worked for one month with the respondents no.3 and 4. The
petition or the legal notice issued by the petitioner does not even
disclose as to what were the terms of employment, what was the salary
agreed or whether the petitioner was on probation or whether he had
gained permanent employment. He submits that the judicial
adventurism embarked upon by the petitioner should not be
encouraged as it is unclear whether the present writ petition is a PIL or
the petitioner wishes to seek recovery under the garb of filing the
petition. It is submitted that the petition would result in a gross waste
of judicial time as also gross waste of time of the respondents i.e.
Union of India, the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, the
Central Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour and Employment
and Department of Labour by impleading them as parties when it is
only a private dispute between the two individuals.
7. We find force in the submissions of the counsels for the respondents.
This writ petition is completely unfounded, not maintainable, devoid
of any relevant facts and a perfect example of judicial adventurism.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JUNE 01, 2018/rb
