AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyeshwar Roy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances, this application is being disposed of at this stage on merit.
In a proceeding u/s 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (the Act) respondent No. 1, the Authority under the Act attached all the movable and immovable properties of Eastern Manganese and Minerals Ltd. u/s 17-A by order dated 9-5-1980.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 filed an application for release of the machineries lying in the mines claiming that these belong to them. After hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 4, by order dated 23-7-1985/ 25-7-1986 respondent No. 1 ordered that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 13,000/- to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 as rent for the machineries. This has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Authority had no jurisdiction to direct the payment of rent to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 as that is not envisaged u/s 17-A of the Act.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submitted that they had filed an application before the Authority for release of the machineries and instead of releasing the machineries the Authority directed for payment of rent to them on the ground that the mining operation may suffer because of the lack of machineries.
Section 17-A of the Act provides that the Authority, if satisfied that the employer or any other person responsible for payment of wages u/s 3 is likely to evade payment of any amount that may be directed to be paid u/s 15 or Section 17, may pass an order attaching so much of the property of the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages which would be sufficient to satisfy the amount which may be payable under the direction.
On perusal of Section 17-A of the Act, it will be clear that order of attachment before final order may be made to secure payment of the amount that may be directed to be paid u/s 15 or 17 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act makes provision for claims where there has been any deduction from wages of any employed person or any payment of wages has been delayed. Section 17 provides for appeal. The attachment, therefore, is for the purpose of making the payment of the amount that may be finally passed under the Act. It does not envisage payment of money on any account except with regard to a claim which may be made u/s 15.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submitted that the Authority may be directed to release the machineries in their favour. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the machineries in question do not belong to respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
What may be attached under Sub-section (1) of Section 17-A is the property if the employer or other person responsible for payment of wages.
Sub-section (2) says that the provisions of CPC (the Code) relating to attachment before judgment under the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to any order made under Sub-section (1). Order 38 of the Code lays down the procedure to be followed in case of attachment before judgment. Provision is there for making claim to property attached or alleged to be attached. Procedure has been laid down for disposing such claim.
For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this application, quash annexures 13, 14, 15 and 17 to this writ petition and remand the matter to the Authority for passing fresh order on she application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 for releasing the machineries in there favour. The Authority will do this after hearing the parties.