AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Writ petitioner has challenged Payment of Wages Act proceeding in case PWA 14 of 2000 and in particular order dated 4th September, 2017 made therein. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner employer and submits, in June, 1999 the workman was transferred from Cap-lamp department to Battery section. The workman refused to serve in transferred post on health reasons. He did not attend the transferred post. His client then transferred him to Security department on 17th April, 2000. The workman raised a dispute and following issues were referred to First Labour Court.
"1. Whether transfer of Shri K. Biswal with effect from 17.04.2000 from Cap-Lamp Department is justified?
What relief, if any, is he entitled to?"
Before First Labour Court above facts were considered including nonpayment of wages by reason of the workman not having served since June, 1999. The transfer was held to be justified and direction for back wages for period June, 1999 till 16th April, 2000 was directed to be paid by petitioner employer. Mr. Choudhury submits, this payment the workman refused to accept. There was interim order made in his writ petition, since dismissed, directing the workman to come and collect the payment from his client which subsequently the workman came and collected. The workman having filed said writ petition in this Court challenging said order dated 26th May, 2015 passed by First Labour Court, on the other hand initiated this proceeding under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. He submits, sub-section (3) in section 15 of the Act, third proviso says, no direction for payment of compensation shall be made on terms of clauses therein being satisfied. Mr. Chaudhury draws attention to said order dated 4th September, 2017 in which the authority said, inter alia, as follows:
"The Learned First-Labour Court in its award dated 26.05.2015 has declared that the applicant is entitled to legal dues. Legal dues would most definitely include wages as well. Thus, it has been adjudicated in the Case no. VIII-187 of 2001 that the applicant is entitled to the wages for the period which is also the claim period of the present case. However, in Case no. VIII-187 of 2001 no compensation for the non-payment of the wages has been awarded Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act makes provision for compensation. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire relief of the applicant has been exhausted through the award.
In such circumstance, I find no reason to allow the prayer of the O.P.Hence, it is ORDERED the instant application dated 06.01.2017 filed by the O.P. is rejected on contest without costs."
He submits, the authority has already decided it will award compensation. It is only the amount that is left to be directed. Hence, there should be interference. Mr. Choudhury relies on judgement of Supreme Court in Bombay Gas Co. Vs. Shridhar Bhau reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1196, to a passage in paragraph 7 therein reproduced below:
"............... So long therefore as the award stands and so long as there is no proof that there has been a change in the conditions of service after the award necessitating reconsideration of the matter, the claim of the respondent for delayed or deducted wages when he has all along been paid in accordance with that award cannot be entertained and decided by the Authority. If this were permissible it would mean that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act would be practically sitting in appeal on awards of industrial tribunals and upsetting them. This it cannot do so long as an award of an industrial tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide the matter remains in force. We are therefore of opinion that the appeal must be allowed on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and decide it..........."
Mr. Pal learned advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, there should not be any interference. The authority must consider whether clause (b) in third proviso to sub-section (3) section 15 of the Act is attracted or applicable in deciding the matter of award of compensation. There were issues referred to First Labour Court and decision on payment of wages made by judgment of said Court which upheld the transfer but directed payment of wages for the period. There was no delay on the part of employer to thereafter pay. It is the workman who refused to accept payment and later went and collected from his employer pursuant to interim order obtained in his writ petition. The authority must also consider Bombay Gas Company (supra). A further direction made upon the authority is that it will proceed to consider case for award of compensation, afresh and not pursuant to said order dated 4th September, 2017. Petitioner will approach the authority for expeditious disposal of the proceeding.
With above directions this with petition is disposed of.