SHISHUPAL PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fourteen workers filed an application under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Piece Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 alleging that the petitioner has failed to pay wages amounting to Rs.3,86,575/- and therefore, the said amount may be recoverred under the Act. The petitioner appeared and objected to the proceeding contending that, for the purpose of interior designing and painting his bungalow, the petitioner had engaged an engineer Sri J.D.Geharana and under his supervision some masons, painters and electricians were engaged on daily rated basis for which they were paid their wages. It was contended that whatever wages were payable was paid to the Engineer, who in turn had made the payment to the workers and that nothing was due and payable. Further, the petitioner is not an occupier nor the bungalow where the interior works were carried out, is an industrial establishment. The petitioner, consequently, contended that no proceedings under the Act 1978 could be initiated.

(2.) Inspite of this specific objection being raised, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has passed an order under Section 3 of the Act for recovery of the wages, on the ground, that no proof of payment was filed by the petitioner or by his Engineer, Sri Gehrana. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties the Court finds that the statements of Objects and Reasons given under the Act of 1978 indicates that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act was found to be inadequate to ensure timely payment of wages and that the incidence of disturbance of industrial peace was greater in establishment and, therefore, it was considered necessary to provide that if the wage bill in default exceeded Rs.50,000/-, the amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. This became essential because it was found that there was a tendency of the employers to keep large amount of wages in arrears.