Mining Engineer (VIG) vs Akhlesh Kumar Sharma and Another

Ashok Parihar, J.—On an application filed by the respondent No. 1 (the concerned workman) u/s 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), a sum of Rs. 4368.95 paise were computed by the Payment of Wages Authority, Bharatpur (the Authority) vide order dated March 9, 1990. The above sum included the wages for the period from November 1, 1968 to January 31, 1988 (sic.) with compensation and other consequential amounts. Since compliance of the above order dated March 9, 1990 was not made, the concerned workman again filed an application u/s 20(6) of the Act before the Authority. The Authority, while allowing the application, vide order dated July 26, 1993, directed the petitioner to pay additional sum of Rs. 18,250/- as penalty at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day for delayed payment for 1215 days. The order dated March 9, 1990 as also July 26, 1993 are under challenge in the present writ petition.

This Court, while dismissing the writ petition so far as Order dated March 9, 1990 is concerned and admitted the writ petition only to the extent of the validity of order dated July 26, 1993, vide order dated January 24, 1994. An interim order was also passed to the extent that petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/.

In spite of service of notice, the concerned workman has not chosen to appear before this Court.

After hearing earned Counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the impugned order as also the relevant provisions of the Act.

Section 15 of the Act relates to the claims arising out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims. u/s 15 the Authority has been empowered to compute the amount in favour of the concerned workman. Section 17 of the Act provides for appeal against the order of the Payment of Wages Authority u/s 15. Section 20 of the Act is only in regard to penalty for offences under the Act. However, Section 21 of the Act further provides for procedure in trial of offences. A bare reading of Section 20 of the Act would show that it provides for penalty for various offences under different Sections of the Act. The procedure for trial of offences have only been provided u/s 21 of the Act. Under the procedure as provided u/s 21 it is only a Court which can make cognizance of the offence and impose penalty as provided u/s 20 of the Act. The Authority under the Act has been defined u/s 15 of the Act itself. However, the Authority, in the present case, cannot be treated as the Court as referred to u/s 21 of the Act. In the present case, the Payment of Wages Authority only could grant sanction to the concerned workman for prosecution of the defaulting employer, however, could not have imposed penalty of its own.

Having considered entire facts and circumstances as also relevant provisions of the Act, in my opinion, the impugned order dated July 26, 1993 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is quashed and set aside. The petitioner may now withdraw the amount of Rs. 2000/- as ordered by this Court after filing a proper application for the same. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.