Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Amit Chadda vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir Through on 18 October, 2023
Sr. No. 25
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No.1686/2018
CM No. 5620/2023
Amit Chadda, age 40 years ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
S/O P.C. Chadda
R/O 22, Rose Avenue Firozpur City,
Punjab-152001
Through :- Mr. Anil Khajuria, Advocate.
V/s
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir through ....Respondent(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.
Labour and Employment Department,
Civil Secretariat Jammu.
2. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua
(Authority under Payment of Wages Act)
3. Sunil Pangotra
S/O Sat Pal Sharma
R/O W. No.-02,
Opposite Old PNB Lane, Near well
Tehsil and District Kathua, J&K
Through :- Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG for R-1&2.
M/s Gagan Kohli & Manik Bhardwaj,
Advocates for R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
18.10.2023
1. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K,
seeks setting aside of the order dated 31.03.2018 (impugned order) passed by
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua as Authority under Payment of Wages
Act, 1936, (for short 'Authority below') in a petition titled 'Sunil Pangotra V.
Amit Chadda & Anr,' whereunder claim of the petitioner/respondent No.3
herein, under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was allowed and
the petitioner herein was directed to make payment of an amount of ₹2,97,500/-
on account of delayed wages for the period from January 2015 to November
2017.
2. The respondent No.3- Sunil Pangotra had laid a claim before the
Authority below, asserting therein that he was employed as Medical
Representative by M/S Organic Labs Private Ltd. for Kathua headquarter on
01.09.2013 and alleged that the respondents had neither paid any salary to the
petitioner nor reimbursed expenses, without any reasons and despite requesting
the respondents to pay him dues, the respondents paid nothing for his services
for the period from January 2015 till filing of the claim petition.
3. After entertaining the application/petition by the Authority below,
notice was issued to the respondents including the petitioner herein, for filing of
objections. On filing of objections by the respondents and after raising all eight
issues settled on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the petition was
disposed of after recording of evidence, vide impugned order, holding under
Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act that petitioner-Amit Chadda, Chief
Executive Officer (CEO), M/S Organic Labs Private Ltd., being the employer of
the applicant/respondent No.3 to make a payment of ₹2,97,500/- as delayed
wages w.e.f. January 2015 to November 2017, along with an amount of ₹2,000/-
as compensation for causing delay.
4. The aforesaid impugned order has been challenged through the
medium of the instant petition by the petitioner-Amit Chadda, mainly, on the
premises, that he is not liable to pay any amount being not the employer of the
respondent No.3, who had been engaged/employed by M/S Organic Labs Private
Ltd, a pharmaceutical company incorporated under the Company's Act, who had
been arrayed separately as respondent.
5. The petitioner had been shown as CEO of the Company before the
Authority below and, as per record, no such plea had been taken by the petitioner
herein before the Authority, that in view of non impleadment of the Company as
a juristic person separately in the petition, he, as CEO, is not liable. As no such
plea was raised, no such issue was also framed for disposal by the Authority
below.
6. The order passed by an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is
appealable under Section 17 of the Act before the District Court, and such an
appeal is entertainable only, if memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a
certificate of the Authority below, to the effect that the appellant has deposited
the entire amount payable in terms of the award under Appeal.
7. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal which, in the
considered opinion of this court, is the efficacious remedy under the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936, the petitioner chose to file this appeal, presumably to
overcome the rider of depositing the entire amount of the award. The petitioner
is, thus, under obligation to satisfy this court as to how, despite availability of
equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the Payment of Wages Act,
this petition is maintainable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the Company,
who had employed the respondent No.3 as Medical Representative, had not been
arrayed as a respondent before the Authority, which is the legal requirement, as
to how a juristic person is to be impleaded to seek relief against the Company.
As such, the impugned order /judgment passed by the Authority below is non-est
and cannot be enforced against the petitioner, who is simply a Director of the
Company.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to project a hyper technical
plea in the case, as it is clear from the pleadings before the Authority below that
the petitioner as respondent No.1 had not been impleaded in his personal
capacity, rather he had been impleaded as CEO of the Company in question,
therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to this point that there was
no liability by a CEO of a Company seems to be fallacious and even if this legal
point is allowed to be raised, even then the writ petition is not maintainable in
view of equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the Payment of
Wages Act, which requires the deposit of the entire awarded amount before
filing of such an appeal. In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to defeat the provisions of the beneficial legislation of
Payment of Wages Act legislated to save the interest of the working
class/employees.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and observations made
hereinabove, it is, thus, held that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of
equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under the Payment of Wages Act.
The petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.
11. In this backdrop of the matter, the petition is dismissed, along with
connected application(s). Interim direction if any shall stand vacated.
) (MA CHOWDHARY)
Jammu: JUDGE
18.10.2023
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable? :Yes/No.
