LAWS(ALL)-1972-4-2

KISHAN CHAND AGARWAL Vs. CITY MAGISTRATE

Decided On April 04, 1972
KISHAN CHAND AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
CITY MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was made by respondents Nos. 2 to 51 claiming payment of wages from the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. They claimed that their wages falling under the various heads had fallen due and that the petitioners were not paying the same. Subsequent thereto, an application under Section 17a of the Payment of Wages Act was also filed by the employees, and they requested that five items of property said to belong to their employers be attached, on the ground that the employers had illegally closed the factory and had thrown out the employees from employment and that they were trying to transfer, dispose of or remove the assets so as to evade payments.

(2.) THE employers filed objections to the aforesaid application for attachment and denied the allegations contained therein. In paragraph 8 of their objection (Annexure "e" to the petition), it was stated that inasmuch as there was no specification of the actual acts committed by the employers of removal of property, etc. , there was nothing on the record to enable the respondent No. 1 to come to the conclusion that an attachment under Section 17a was warranted. The respondent No. 1 by his order dated 25-2-1972 directed the petitioners not to transfer, dispose of, remove or pilfer (1) T. M. Industries Factory at Unit A-2 and A-3, Industrial Estate, Laharatara P. S. Dasaswamedh, Varanasi with all the fixtures and machineries, (2) Stores of T. M. Industries at Shed No. 1-A, Industrial Estate, Laharatara P. S. Dasaswamedh, (3) Piyuth Ice Factory also known as Tribeni Motor Car Co. , and Ice Factory, Porade Koathi, Varanasi Cantonment, Varanasi, (4) Ambassador Car No. UPL 9665 and (5) Fiat Car No. UPL 4472, and he also directed the petitioners to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 1,93,194. 13. , the total amount claimed by the workmen by the 6th March, 1972. The petitioners have challenged this order by way of this writ petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has urged that the various amounts claimed by the workmen except the one relating to arrears of wages did not fall within the definition of the word "wages" as defined under the Act, and as such the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or to pass any order of attachment. Secondly, it is contended that the order attaching the properties is nut in conformity with the provisions of the Act, and that no reason for directing attachment has been given.