MERINO LTD Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY LABOUR COMMISSIONER BIJNORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Singh for respondent no.2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought relief of writ of certiorari for quashing the proceeding of PWA Case No.18 of 2005 Ajit Singh Vs. Merind Ltd. and another pending before the Prescribed Authority (under Payment of Wages Act)/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Another relief for writ of prohibition restraining the respondent no.1 from entertaining or adjudicating upon the proceedings in PWA Case No.18 of 2005 has also been sought for. This petition was allowed in open Court on 2.12.2008 with indication that reasons will be given later on, therefore, the same are given hereinafter.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the case are that respondent no.2 made an application on 6.4.2004 under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 hereinafter referred to as ' the 1936 Act' before respondent no.1/Prescribed Authority under 1936 Act, Bijnor and claimed wages amounting to Rs.1, 26, 162.50/-. A further sum of Rs.12, 61, 625/- was claimed as compensation in terms of Section 15 (3) of the said Act. THE petitioners filed their written statement on 14.7.2004. Apart from reply on merits the attention of respondent no.1 was also drawn to the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioners with regard to the applicability of provisions of the 1936 Act, and the authority of respondent no.1 to adjudicate upon the claim laid down by respondent no.2. In the said written statement the petitioners have inter alia stated that the respondent no.2 was employed as a sales representative by the petitioners and was engaged in the work of carrying samples of medicines and other products manufactured by the petitioners to doctors etc. and was enjoined to educate and apprise them of the attributes, functions and advantages of the products of the petitioners. A copy of appointment letter issued to the respondent no.2 dated 15.3.1997 is on record as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. It is stated that the respondent no.2 was transferred from Bijnor to Dimapur (Asam) in the year 2003 where he was to join duties by 18.8.2003. But the respondent no.2 had failed to join duties at Dimapur and remained absent without leave unauthorizedly thereafter and since the respondent no.2 failed to join the place of posting, no salary was paid to him on the principle of no work no pay.

(3.) THE aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners by means of writ petition no. 10794 of 2005 wherein this court on 10.3.2005 was pleased to direct that the proceedings before the respondent no.1 may go on and final order may also be passed but no recovery in pursuance of final order would be made without leave of the court. Subsequent to the aforesaid order being passed, the respondent no.1 by an order dated 24.3.2005 was pleased to allow the claim of respondent no.2 directing payment of Rs. 126162=50p. as wages together with compensation amounting to eight times the above and holding the petitioners liable to pay a sum of Rs. 11, 35, 462=50 p. A copy of the order dated 24.3.2005 passed by respondent no.1 is on record as Annexure-9 to this petition. THEreafter the petitioners moved a review application which came to be dismissed on 24.6.2005. THE aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the petitioners in writ petition no. 10794 of 2005 by means of amendment application.