Khalil Abdool Samad vs Government of Maharashtra and Others

R.J. Kochar, J.—The petitioner, along with other employees, who are named in Annexure "A", has filed the present petition under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent employer for payment of their legal dues. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Company is closed and all the assets are in the hands of the Court Receiver. We have enquired from him whether he had approached the Court Receiver. The answer was that the Court Receiver refused to pay any amount to the employees. We have also enquired from him whether the employees had exhausted the alternate and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the Industrial Disputes Act or even the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The learned Advocate replied in the negative. These are the alternate and efficacious remedies, provided under the labour legislations, to which the petitioners have not resorted to and have straightaway filed the present petition. The legal dues will have to be computed and determined on the basis of evidence. We cannot go into all these facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is far fetched argument that Article 21 is also attracted. So far the alternative remedies which are also equally or more efficacious, under the labour legislations have not been scrapped and it is not shown why the employees had not resorted to such cheap remedies easily available to them and exclusively meant for them.

To help the employees in getting their legal dues early, we allow them to implead the Court Receiver in the proceedings which they might file before the Labour/Industrial Court or the Payment of Wages Act Authority.

To further the interest of justice, we also direct the Court Receiver to consider and decide the claims of those employees as expeditiously as possible according to law, if they lodge such claims before him.

In view of the alternate remedy being available, this petition cannot be entertained and hence, the same is rejected. The petitioners are at liberty to resort to the appropriate alternate remedies.