ELGIN MILLS CO LTD Vs. ADD REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recovery certificate dated April 30, 1994 issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner. U.P. Kanpur Region, Kanpur in the purported exercise of power under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payments of Wages) Act, 1978 (in Short 'the Act') is sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition filed at the instance of the concerned Industrial Establishment

(2.) The impugned recovery certificate has been issued on an application under Section 3 of the Act read with rule 22 of the U.P. Factory Welfare Officers Rules, 1955 ( in short 'the Rules') moved on behalf of the workmen of the concerned Industrial Establishment through Ram Das Shukla, President of Elgin Mill No. 2, Rashtriya Shramik Sangh, 2, Navin Market, Kanpur for realisation of a sum of Rs. 7,24,619.56 as over time due to the workmen and Rs. 2,44,236.11 due to the welfare officers; arrayed herein as respondents No. 3 and 4. It was alleged in the application that all the workmen of Eiign Mill No. 2 had worked overtime from time to time during January 1, 1980 and December 31, 1980 and thereby earned over time wages at the rate of 200% i.e. at double rate for the period they had worked overtime, but they were actually paid over time wages at single rate i.e., at the rate of 100% and so an amount of Rs. 7,24,619.56 remained unpaid to the workmen during the year 1980. Similarly it was alleged that a sum of Rs. 2,44,236.11 remained unpaid to the two Labour Welfare Officers herein arrayed as respondents No. 3 and 4, which they were entitled to get towards dearness allowance, bonus, provident fund, housing, medical and other facilities.

(3.) The Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur rejected vide order dated April 22, 1983 the application aforestated in as much as the matter, in his opinion, involved computation which could be done under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An application was then moved on behalf of the workmen and the two Labour Officers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 4 of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act for review of the order dated April 22, 1983. The review application was opposed on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia on the ground that it was not maintainable in as much as the Labour Commissioner had no power of review under the provisions of the Act.