Jasoka India Ltd. vs Opinder Badyal

L.N. Mittal, J.—Jasoka India Ltd. has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent Opinder Badyal was employee of the petitioner Company. He filed application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1948 (in short - the Wages Act) for recovery of his deducted wages. Learned Authority, under the said Act, vide judgment dated 09.10.1997 (Annexure P- 1), allowed the said application and directed the petitioner Company to pay Rs. 13,773.01 as wages along with interest @ 6% per annum, besides compensation of Rs. 25/- only. Respondent-workman filed application for recovery of the amount of wages and compensation as fine from the respondent in view of Section 15 (5)(b) of the Wages Act. Petitioner company filed objections inter alia that the petitioner company has been declared sick unit by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), vide order dated 31.03.1999 and in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short - the Act), no recovery can be effected from the petitioner company. The said objections were dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated 20.02.2008 (Annexure P- 3). Thereafter, the petitioner company filed another application taking same objection that proceedings against it for recovery of the amount cannot be carried out in view of Section 22 of the Act, having been declared a sick unit. Learned Magistrate dismissed this application vide order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-5). It appears that thereafter learned Magistrate ordered sale of attached property of the petitioner company. Pursuant to said order, sale proclamation dated 18.09.2010 (Annexure P-6) has been issued by learned Magistrate to Court Auctioneer. By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner company has assailed orders Annexures P-3 and P-5 and also sale proclamation Annexure P-6 mentioning it as sale order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in view of Section 22 of the Act, property of petitioner Company, which has been declared sick unit, cannot be sold. The contention cannot be accepted in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Objection to this effect taken by the petitioner company before Magistrate was dismissed by Magistrate vide order dated 20.02.2008 (Annexure P-3). The said order has been challenged in the instant revision petition filed on 18.11.2010. Learned Magistrate again negatived the aforesaid objection of the petitioner company vide order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-5). The said order has also been challenged in this revision petition.

The instant revision petition challenging the said orders is barred by delay and laches. Order dated 20.02.2008 (Annexure P-3) attained finality having not been challenged for two years and nine months. Order Annexure P-5 is only reiteration of order Annexure P-3. The said order was also not challenged for more than a year. Consequently, the instant revision petition qua orders Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-5 is barred by delay and laches.

Petitioner has also impugned order Annexure P-6 in this revision petition, but Annexure P-6 is in fact not an order. This is process issued by Magistrate to Court Auctioneer to effect auction of attached property of the petitioner company. However, order vide which auction of attached property was ordered, pursuant to which process Annexure P-6 has been issued, has not been challenged in this revision petition nor any such order has been placed on file. Consequently, process Annexure P-6 cannot be challenged by way of this revision petition.

It may also be added that pursuant to interim order of this Court, petty amount of Rs. 26,995/-, due from the petitioner company to respondent workman, has been deposited with the Registry of this Court and the same has been deposited in Fixed Deposit, as per interim order of this Court. It is surprising that the petitioner company, instead of paying the aforesaid petty amount to its workman, as already directed by the Authority under the Wages Act, is resorting to fruitless litigation by filing repeated objections before the Magistrate and then by filing this revision petition. Instead of spending money on this fruitless litigation, the petitioner should have gracefully paid the due amount to its workman in the first instance. No ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the petitioner company, is thus made out, for this added reason as well. The instant revision petition appears to be abuse of process of law by taking refuge u/s 22 of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The amount of Rs. 26,995/-, deposited by the petitioner company with the Registry of this Court, along with accrued interest amount thereon, be remitted to learned Magistrate, where proceedings for recovery of the amount are already pending, for disbursal to the respondent-workman.