NAASIR HUSAIN Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2, Iftekhar Hussain.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 claiming to be an employee of the petitioner filed a case before the authority under Payment of Wages Act claiming Rs. 59,000/-. The case (P.W.A. No. 1 of 2009, Iftekhar Hussain v. Naasir Husain) was decided ex parte on 20.3.2009. In pursuance thereof recovery notice was issued and some movable items of the petitioner were attached. Thereafter, petitioner filed restoration application. In the restoration application compromise was entered into between the parties and respondent No. 2 accepted Rs. 35,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. Thereafter an application was filed stating that restoration application might be dismissed and original order awarding the claim of Rs. 59,000/- be also set aside/modified. The authority under Payment of Wages Act 1936 Assistant Labour Commissioner, Moradabad, wrongly passed a very strange order dated 23.9.2009 which is contained in Annexure 8 and has been challenged through this writ petition. The authority held that as the compromise had taken place for lesser amount than the amount claimed by respondent No. 2 and awarded through ex parte order hence it was not acceptable. Reliance was placed upon Section 23 of Payment of Wages Act. Under the said Section relinquishment of right conferred by the Act is declared to be null and void. When the workman even before the Payment of Wages Authority accepted the settlement, Section 23 could not be taken as bar for accepting the same. Section 23 is quoted below:

(3.) The said section does not apply to compromise for settlement of dues particularly if such a compromise is entered into during the proceedings for payment of wages and filed therein. The Act no where prohibits settlement of dispute or accord and satisfaction.