AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Jaipur (hereafter 'the Authority') in respect of the proceedings undertaken under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereafter 'the Act of 1936').
The petitioners also pray for taking action against the respondent No.1 for making a malicious and vexatious application under the Act of 1936.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Authority by the impugned order has not considered the basic ingredients/requirements for entertaining the application for payment of wages under the Act of 1936.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondent- applicant was never employed as an employee of the petitioners and there was no question of granting any wages to respondent No.1.
Learned counsel submitted that the very application filed by the respondent was not to be entertained by the Authority.
Learned counsel further submitted that an application to recall the order dated 14.06.2019 was filed before the Competent Authority and the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2020.
This Court has asked learned counsel for the petitioners about the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act of 1936, where an employer or any other person responsible for payment of wages, has been given right to file an appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the error of law, which has been committed by the Competent Authority, can be rectified by this Court and the Appellate Forum is not a right Forum to assail such order, passed by the Authority.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are required to deposit the full amount for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority and as such, the petitioners cannot be burdened to deposit the amount, which has been ordered under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936 by the Authority.
Learned counsel further submitted that if the orders are void ab initio, the requirement of filing an appeal, may not be insisted upon by this Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondent- applicant had also approached the Police by filing complaint against the present petitioners and the complainant was examined by the Police and a report was submitted on 08.01.2020, wherein the dispute was found to be of civil nature and further, the investigation did not disclose any fact, in respect to wages, required to be paid to the applicant-respondent.
Learned counsel submitted that frivolous and vexatious claim was laid before the Authority and as such, this Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the illegal orders passed without jurisdiction.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
This Court has gone through the orders passed by the Authority on 14.06.2019 and noticed that the petitioners were served with the copy of application and after appearing on certain occasions, the petitioners did not appear before the Authority and as such, ex-parte proceedings were drawn on 25.01.2019.
This Court further finds that the application, which was filed by the petitioners, for recalling the order, makes a reference of absence of the petitioners on 17.09.2018, 29.10.2018, 26.11.2018, 24.12.2018, 16.01.2019 and finally the ex-parte proceedings were drawn on 25.01.2019.
The case was fixed for final arguments on 11.03.2019 and since the petitioners did not appear on subsequent date, as well, the Authority passed the order on 14.06.2019.
This Court finds that the grounds which are sought to be raised before this Court, like the order passed without considering the applicability of the Act of 1936, want of jurisdiction, error of law and illegal order, these issues can always be examined by the Appellate Forum, which has been provided under the Act of 1936.
The requirement of pre-deposit to file an appeal, cannot be a ground to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners have all the rights to assail the order of the Authority passed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1936 and only on account of pre-deposit and order without considering the relevant provision, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed on account of alternative remedy available to the petitioners, however, the petitioners have liberty to approach the appropriate Appellate Forum and they are always free to make their all legal submissions in support of their cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture, submitted that, at least, the requirement of depositing the amount for filing appeal, as per sub-Section (1A) of Section 17 of the Act of 1936, may be dispensed with by this Court.
This Court finds that, if the petitioners have any valid reason of not depositing the amount, which is required to be paid as pre-deposit and there is a power with the Authority to dispense with the same, decision can always be taken by the Authority, as per law.