SOORAJ AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2013 by which it was directed that the petitioner had to pay to the respondent no. 3 wages for 18 days in the month of December 2012 i.e. from the Ist December till the 18th of December, 2012. Further, the writ petition has been filed against the recovery order issued thereafter under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent no. 3 filed an application on 9.1.2013 stating that the wages for the month of December 2012 be paid to the employees of the petitioner. Upon notices being issued to the petitioner, objections were filed by it on 24.1.2013. In it, the petitioner had stated that the Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, himself was holding conciliation meeting and that he was aware of the fact that the employees of the petitioner had not reported for work in the month of December and, it had, thus, stated that there was no requirement to produce any evidence regarding the fact that the employees had not worked. The petitioner had also stated that only an admitted wage bill could have been ordered to be paid but for the month of December, 2012 as employees of the petitioner had not worked at all, there was no question of any wage bill for the month of December, 2012. However, the impugned order dated 4.2.2014 was passed and the petitioner assails it on the following grounds:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 3 of the Act and submitted that the moment the petitioner had disputed that the employees had not worked from the 1st of December, 2012, to the 18th of December, 2012, then the Labour Commissioner could not have acted as an adjudicator and could not have decided whether or not the workmen had worked and, therefore, he should have out right referred the matter to the proper forum i.e. the Labour Court or the Labour Tribunal for a proper Adjudication.

(3.) Learned counsel relied upon Section 3 of the Act and the same is being reproduced here as under:-