AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Srivastava, J.—The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.1982 allowing payment of Wages Appeal No. 272 of 1981 preferred against order dated 16.7.1981 rejecting an application u/s 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').
The facts which borne out from the record are that an application u/s 15 of the Act was allowed and Rs. 705 was held due against opposite party.
In case of non-compliance of order, application was moved u/s 20(6) of the Act. The application was rejected by Prescribed Authority.
The appeal filed by Ram Prasad opposite party against the said order was allowed. This order is impugned in the writ petition.
Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that against order rejecting the application u/s 20(6) of the Act, no appeal lies. Appeal was wholly incompetent and order passed by Additional District Judge allowing P.W. Appeal No. 272 of 1981 is without jurisdiction. He urged that the appellate order is liable to be quashed.
Sri Satya Prakash, appearing for opposite party could not show any thing under the payment of Wages Act, 1936, that any appeal lies against an order rejecting application u/s 20(6) of the Act.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective arguments. 1 have also gone through various provisions of Payment of Wages Act. I am of the view that no appeal lies against the order rejecting application u/s 20(6) of the Act. Section 20(6) of Payment of Wages Act is being quoted below :
"If any person fails or wilfully neglects to pay the wages of any employed person by the date fixed by the authority in this behalf, he shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be punishable with an additional fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day for which such failure or neglect continues."
Only provision for appeal under the Payment of Wages Act is Section 17 of the Act. Section 20 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 mentions penalty for offences under the Act. Section 20(6) also relates to punishment with additional fine for failure or wilful neglect to pay the wages.
Section 21 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, relates to procedure trial of the offence. There is no such provision u/s 21 of Payment of Wages Act also to infer that appeal lies against the order rejecting an application u/s 20(6) of the Act.
Thus, from discussion made above. I hold that no appeal lies from any order u/s 20(6) of the Payment of Wages Act.
In case the opposite party is so advised, he may avail his alternative remedy elsewhere. No direction in this regard is required for the same as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.5.1982 passed in P.W. Appeal No. 272 of 1981, is quashed.
No order as to cost.