MODI INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1 by which he has forwarded to the Collector of the District a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of wages due from the petitioner for being recovered as arrears of land revenue.5 In both the petitions counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the petitions may be heard and decided finally at this stage.

(2.) Brief facts from which the aforesaid two petitions have arisen are that petitioners failed to pay the wages of the workers for the month of December, 1992 which ought to have been paid to them by 10th of the following month. The workers approached respondentNo. 1 Additional Labour Commissioner, for securing payment 5 of their wages. Respondents No. 1 acting under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act 1978 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act of 1978), gave a notice requiring petitioner to give information in Form 3 prescribed under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act of 1978. The petitioner put in appearance and filed a reply raising various pleas justifying non-payment of the wages within time. Respondent No. l, however, disagreed with the contentions raised by petitioner and issued a certificate on February 10, 1993 for recovery of Rs. 13 Lakhs as arrears of ! land revenue in respect of wages for the month of December, 1992 which is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 4784 of 1993. Another certificate was issued on February 23, 1993 for Rs. 20 Lakhs in respect of wages of the 1 employees for the month of January, 1992 which has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 6471 of 1993. The question of facts and law in both the writ petitions are common with the only difference that they perta in to the payment of wages in respect of different months as mentioned above and both the writ petitions may be conveniently decided by a common judgment.

(3.) Shri J.N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has challenged the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. l on the following grounds: