Krish Upaj Mandi Samiti Ltd., Sadulpur vs Dharam Pal and Another

M.N. Bhandari

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally. By this writ petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 9.7.2008 at Annexure -11 passed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Churu. By the aforesaid order, wages of certain period has been computed in favour of the respondent-employee.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the award was passed in favour of the respondent employee wherein direction of reinstatement was ordered. A writ petition challenging the award was preferred by the petitioner Society bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2008, wherein, operation of the award was stayed vide order dated 5.10.2006. The respondent employee thereupon moved an application u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said application was allowed by this court. The Payment of Wages Authority then computed the wages as if respondent employee was entitled to reinstatement or it was having authority to execute order passed by the High Court u/s 17B of the Act of 1947. The authority concerned exceeded to its jurisdiction as the direction for payment is of the period under stay of the award of this court. In the aforesaid background, impugned order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority should be taken as nullity or without jurisdiction. This is for that reason only that petitioner has not preferred an appeal but invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is more so when the writ petition challenging the award is pending before this court only.

Learned counsel for respondent employee, at the first instance, raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, however, taking note of the fact that even if this court has passed order u/s 17B of the Act of 1947, execution thereof or direction for its compliance cannot be passed by the Payment of Wages Authority. This is more son when operation of the award was stayed by this court. He is fair enough to state that while disposing of the present writ petition by setting aside the order, rights of the respondent employee may not be closed as he is otherwise entitled to the benefit arising out of the order passed on the application u/s 17B of the Act of 1947. Respondent employee may accordingly be given liberty to pursue his case to claim benefit aforesaid if not already extended.

In view of submissions of the parties and keeping in mind that the award pursuant to which computation has been made by the Payment of Wages Authority, cannot be said to be legal when an interim order against the award was passed by this court and matter is yet pending consideration. So far as the order passed u/s 17B of the Act of 1947, the Payment of Wages Authority cannot be said to be executing authority of the High Court''s order. The authority below had exceeded to his jurisdiction by passinig order ignoring all these aspects, however, now the contest is not made by the respondents employee to the impugned order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority thus it is set aside, however with the observation that so far as the respondent employee is concerned, he would be at liberty to claim benefit u/s 17B of the Act of 1947 as was ordered by this court in the pending writ petition No. 4787/2006, if not granted till date. He would accordingly be at liberty to make an application before this court in the pending writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2006 and otherwise petitioner is expected to extend benefits as are admissible to the respondent employee. With the aforesaid liberty, impugned order is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of.