Panchayat Development Officer vs Deputy Labour Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 6214 Kant

                                             -1-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC-D:9805-DB
                                                      WA No. 100177 of 2023




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                      DHARWAD BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                          PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
                                            AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                          WRIT APPEAL NO. 100177 OF 2023 (L-RES)



                   BETWEEN:

                        PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
                        GRAM PANCHAYAT TIMMAPUR,
                        BASAVANAGAR L. T.,
                        TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT
                                                               ....APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
                        BELAGVI REGION, BELAGAVI,
ROHAN
HADIMANI                PIN 590001
T
                   2.   LABOUR INSPECTOR,
Digitally signed
by ROHAN                BAGALKOT CIRCLE, BAGALKOT,
HADIMANI T
Date:
                        DIST. BAGALKOT 587101.
2023.09.02
12:30:27 -0700
                   3.   SRI SHANTAPPA S/O.SHIVALINGAPPA WODEYAR,
                        AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,
                        R/O. RAMPUR, TQ. BAGALKOT,
                        DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN 587207.

                   4.   SRI BHARAMAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA HANCHINAL,
                        AGE. ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,
                               -2-
                                NC: 2023:KHC-D:9805-DB
                                      WA No. 100177 of 2023




    R/O. RAMPUR, TQ. BAGALKOT,
    DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN 587207.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MADANMOHAN KHANNUR, AGA FOR RESP.NOS.1 & 2)
(BY SRI RAVI HEDGE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO. 103051/2022 (L-RES) DATED 15.02.2023.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is directed against the

impugned order dated 15.02.2023 passed in Writ Petition

No.103051/2022 (L-RES), where the said petition filed by

the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed on the ground

of availability of alternative efficacious remedy under

Section 17(1)(A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for

short, 'the Act, 1936').

2. The material on record discloses that

respondent No.2-Labour Inspector initiated proceedings

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9805-DB WA No. 100177 of 2023

under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1936 in relation to

payment of wages payable to respondent Nos.3 and 4 by

the appellant herein. In the said proceedings initiated by

the 2nd respondent-Labour Inspector before respondent

No.1-Deputy Labour Commissioner, apart from putting

forth various defences, the appellant/writ petitioner also

contended that the 1st respondent-Deputy Labour

Commissioner do not have jurisdiction or authority of law

to entertain and adjudicate upon the said proceedings.

After hearing the parties, the 1st respondent-Deputy

Labour Commissioner proceeded to pass an order dated

30.06.2022 by invoking Section 15(3) of the Act, 1936

and issued directions allowing the claim of the 2nd

respondent-Labour Inspector, thereby directing the

appellant/writ petitioner to make payment in favour of

respondent Nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellant/writ petitioner filed the instant petition which

was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by holding

that in view of availability of equally efficacious and

alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9805-DB WA No. 100177 of 2023

of the Act, 1936 the writ petition was not maintainable.

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner is before this

Court by way of the present appeal.

3. A perusal of the material on record including the

impugned order will indicate that though several

contentions have been urged by both sides in support of

their respective claims including jurisdiction/lack of

jurisdiction on the part of the 1st respondent to entertain

the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Labour

Inspector, without expressing any opinion on the

merits/de-merits of the rival contentions, we deem it just

and appropriate to dispose of this appeal confirming the

order of the learned Single Judge that there is an equally

efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal

provided in favour of appellant under Section 17 of the

Act, 1936. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the

proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Labour

Inspector before the 1st respondent-Deputy Labour

Commissioner, were under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1936

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9805-DB WA No. 100177 of 2023

and culminated in directions issued by the 1st respondent

under Section 15(3) of the Act, 1936, which is clearly

appealable under Section 17 of the Act, 1936. Under these

circumstances, we do not find any merits in the present

appeal and same is accordingly, dismissed.

4. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the

appellant to prefer statutory appeal under Section 17 of

the Act, 1936 before the appellate Authority. If the

appellant prefers such an appeal before the Appellate

Authority in terms of Section 17 of the Act, 1936 within a

period of 06 weeks from today, appellant would be entitled

to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

CKK