ELGIN MILLS COMPANY LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the employer-petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent no. 4, at length and in detail.

(2.) THE Interlocutory order dated 24th November, 1984 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner. Uttar Pradesh Kanpur Region, Kanpur, the respondent no. 1, holding that he had jurisdiction under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, hereinafter called the Act, to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim of the workman-respondent end directing the concerned authorities of the employer to appear on 28th November. 1984 for further hearing, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

(3.) SRI K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the workman-respondent, relies upon the provisions of section 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 and submits that the respondent no. 1 did not lack power to pass the impugned order setting aside the earlier order passed by him on 22nd April, 1983. Further submission of SRI Agarwal is that the respondent no. 1 in passing the impugned order did not decide any of the Tights of the parties. He only revised the opinion that the matter with respect to the claim of the contesting respondent was cognizable by him. SRI Agarwal also submits that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and the court should sot interfere with it in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.