Roopa Engineers vs Dilipbhai Bhulabhai Panchal and 1

Honourable Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi

Present petition is filed by Roopa Engineers - employer being aggrieved by order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in Payment of Wages Application No. 128 of 2008, against which an appeal was preferred being C.A.P.W. No. 1 of 2009 in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad which came to be dismissed by the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 30/07/2011.

Heard learned Advocate, Mr. Pratik Thakkar, for the Petitioner, who invited attention of the Court to correspondence which took place between the employer and the workman. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to page Nos. 77, 82 and 84 and then also invited attention of the Court to relevant provisions of Payment of Wages Act.

Matter requires consideration. RULE. Mr. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for Respondents wavies service of notice of Rule. On a request made by learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, the matter is taken up for final hearing, to which learned Advocate for the Respondents has no objection.

The matter involves a neat question of law as to whether the application filed by the Respondents herein - workmen under the Payment of Wages Act, was maintainable before the authority, more particularly, when the application was filed only for the limited period from 13/08/2007 to 28/02/2008 so far as first Respondent No. 1 is concerned and from 18/08/2007 to 28/02/2008 so far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned. The Respondents have filed recovery application for the period subsequent thereto. This shows that even the Respondents knew that Payment of Wages Authority will not be the authority for seeking the implementation of the award dated 31/05/2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, No. 1, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1763 of 1999.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (herein after referred to as ''the Act''). Sub-section (4): ''It applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons ''employed''...''

5.1 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that even as per the case of the Respondents - workmen, they were not allowed to resume the work and therefore they can not be said to have been employed and therefore if at all Respondents - workmen wanted relief of implementation of the award passed in Reference (LCA) No. 1763 of 1999, they ought to have approached the appropriate forum.

Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, for the Respondents-workmen has no explanation as to why for a particular period an application under the Payment of Wages Act, is filed; whereas for the period subsequent thereto a recovery application is filed.

This Court is of the opinion that submissions made by learned Advocate for the Petitioner are acceptable and as the question of the ''respondents being employed or not'' was very much in dispute and the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, has also rightly observed that, ''there is words against words'', the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order passed by the appellate authority are found to be not tenable in law. The order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1986 in Payment of Wages Application No. 128 of 2008 and the order passed by the by the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad dated 30/07/2011 in C.A.P.W. No. 1 of 2009 are quashed and set aside.

At the request of learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for the Respondents - workmen it is clarified that it will be open for the Respondents - workmen to amend their recovery application and include the period which was the subject matter of payment of wages application.

Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.