AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. C.L. Soni, J. (Oral)—By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company has challenged the order dated 8/04/2015 passed by the respondent no.3 the Authority for payment of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (''the Act''), whereby the Authority has allowed the application at Exh. 2 preferred by the respondent no.1 in pending Payment of Wages Application No. 1 of 2015 and ordered the petitioner to provide the Bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 15,45,300/- of nationalised Bank.
It appears that the respondent no.1 has preferred an application under Section 15(2) of the Act claiming Rs. 15,45,300/- and in the proceedings of such application, the respondent no.1 also preferred application under Section 17(A) of the Act seeking restraint order against the petitioner not to transfer machineries as well as movable and immovable properties till the main application is heard. In such interim application, the second prayer was to order the petitioner to submit Bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 15,45,300/- to the Authorities.
By impugned order, the Authority has accepted the second prayer and ordered the petitioner to submit Bank guarantee of any nationalised Bank for an amount of Rs. 15,45,300/-
Section 17(A) of the Act reads as under:
17A. Conditional attachment of property of employer or other person responsible for payment of wages:(1) Where at any time after an application has been made under subsection (2) of section 15 the authority, or where at any time after an appeal has been filed under section 17 by an employed person or [any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf or any inspector under this Act or any other person permitted by the authority to make an application under subsection (2) of section 15] the Court referred to in that section, is satisfied that the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3 is likely to evade payment of any amount that may be directed to be paid under Section 15 or Section 17, the authority or court, as the case may be, except in cases where the authority or court is of opinion that the ends of justice would be defeated by the delay, after giving the employer or other person an opportunity of being heard, may direct the attachment of so much of the property of the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages as is, in the opinion of the authority or court, sufficient to satisfy the amount which may be payable under the direction.
(2) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to attachment before judgment under that Code shall, so far as may be, apply to any order for attachment under subsection (1).
Under Section 17A of the Act, the Authority is empowered to direct attachment of so much of the property of the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages as is, in the opinion of the authority or Court, sufficient to satisfy the amount which may be payable under the direction to be issued under Section 15 or 17 of the Act.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner sought to contend that the impugned order is in contravention of the provision of Section 17A of the Act. However, during the course of hearing, he tendered affidavit of the authorised signatory named Patel Ghanshyambhai of the petitioner affidavit which reads as under:
I say that the claim of the workmen of the Contractor is of Rs. 15,45,300/- as claimed by them in the Payment of Wages Application No. 1 of 2015 filed under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Authority appointed under the payment of Wages Act, Bharuch. I further say that the said application is pending before the said authority.
I say that the assets of the Petitioner includes one of the machineries costing Rs. 27,93,000/- Invoice of the said machinery and certificate of chartered accountant indicating the type and value of the machinery are annexed herewith as Annexure-I collectively.
I say that the Petitioner shall not sell or dispose of the above said machinery till the Payment of Wages Application No. 1 of 2015 filed by the workmen of the contractor claiming an amount of Rs. 15,45,300/- is decided by the concerned authority.
In view of the above affidavit filed by the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the respondent no.1 stated that since the purpose behind the filing of the application under Section 17A by the respondent no.1 was to secure the payment of wages claimed in the main application when finally directed by the authority, the Court may consider to direct the petitioner to abide by the terms of affidavit by not transferring the machineries as stated in the affidavit and described in the invoices annexed with the affidavit till the main application pending before the Authority is finally decided and the impugned order may accordingly be substituted by the terms of the affidavit and direction of this Court. He also requests to direct the Authority to decide the main application as expeditiously as possible preferably within the time frame as may be provided by this Court.
Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the petitioner submitted that as per affidavit filed by the petitioner, the payment of wages to the respondent no.1, if finally directed could be said to be well secured and therefore, this Court may suitably modify the impugned order in terms of the affidavit.
In view of the above broad consensus, the petition is disposed of by following directions:
(a) The impugned order dated 8/04/2015 passed by the Authority below application at Exh. 2 in Payment of Wages (P.W) Application No.1 of 2015 pending before the Authority shall stand substituted so as to provide that as mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner shall not transfer the machineries costing Rs. 27,93,000/- as described in the invoice, attached with the affidavit, till the main application is finally heard and decided.
(b) The petitioner is directed to comply with the terms of the above referred affidavit filed in the present proceedings.
(c) As regards the request of learned advocate Mr. Mishra to direct the respondent no.3 to expedite the hearing of the main application and to decide the same within the time frame, it is observed that it will be open to the respondent no.1 to move appropriate application for such purpose before the Authority. As and when such application is preferred, the Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon.