SINGH ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD. Vs. KANDHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions arise out of two applications filed under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. Since common questions of law arise in these cases, it is convenient to dispose them of by one judgment.

(2.) MESSRS Singh Engineering Works Private Ltd., Kanpur, were running two sections, namely, the Steel Foundry Section and the Cast Iron Foundry Section. On May 29, 1970, they put up a notice that the Steel Foundry Section would be closed from May 30, 1970, that the employees working in this section had become surplus and were retrenched and directed them to take their retrenchment compensation. Twelve out of the thirty employees working in the Steel Foundry Section approached the employers and they were engaged in the Cast Iron Foundry section. Fifteen other employees took their retrenchment compensation and ceased to be in service. The remaining three employees, namely, Kandhai Singh, Musafir Singh and Jagannath did not take their retrenchment compensation. On November 16, 1970, an application was filed on behalf of Kandhai Singh and Jagannath by Sri G.L. Bajpai, President, U.P. Workers Union, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, claiming wages for the period May 16, 1970 to October 31, 1970 and compensation for the alleged illegal deduction of wages. Another application was filed by Sri G.L. Bajpai on behalf of Musafir Singh, Kandhai Singh and Jagannath claiming wages for the period November 1, 1970 to May 31, 1971 and claiming compensation for the wrongful deduction of wages. The employers admitted that Kandhai Singh, Jagannath and Musafir Singh were their employees but pleaded that on account of closure of the Steel Foundry Section in which they were working they were retrenched from service with effect from June 1, 1970 and were, therefore, not entitled to the wages and compensation claimed. It was, however, admitted that these three persons were entitled to retrenchment compensation and that the employers were still willing to pay the same. The employers further contended that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the question regarding the closure and the retrenchment of the employees.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the Payment of Wages Authority in the two cases, the employers filed two appeals before the District Judge. In the appeals, the main question raised was that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the closure was a real and valid one and whether the retrenchment of the employees concerned was justified or not. A third appeal was filed by the employees claiming that compensation should have been awarded at ten times the amount of deducted wages. By a common judgment dated August 4, 1972, the Additional District judge, Kanpur, dismissed all, the three appeals. Hence these three revisions.