SAKHARAM SAWLARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 4 Messrs. Getco Products is a partnership firm carrying on business in Greater Bombay. Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 had, at all material times, been partners of the said firm. The petitioners were, at all relevant times, workers employed by the said firm. An application was made by the petitioners to the Payment of Wages Authority against respondent No. 4 firm and is partners for payment of deducted wages amounting in all to Rs. 1,28,481.44 P. Though several pleas were raised in the said proceedings by the partnership firm and the partners, on the ultimate date of hearing 13th June 1977, the partnership firm as also two of its partners Haresh Gahimal Harchandani and Jethnand Gahimal Harchandani duly represented by their lawyer as also the representative lawyer of the petitioners workmen herein filed a joint purshis to the effect that an order should be passed whereby the partnership firm and the partners admit liability to pay an amount of Rs. 1,14,721.13 p. The other partners, though served. remained absent in the aforesaid proceedings, thus impliedly not challenging the claim of the petitioners. The partnership firm and the partners appearing in the said proceedings agreed to an order of payment in the sum of Rs. 1,14,721.13 P. Order accordingly was passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act on 13th June 1977 directing the partnership firm and the partners to deposit towards the claim of the petitioners-workmen herein the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,14,721.13 P. plus Court-fee charges of Rs. 3,500/'-. in all Rs. 1,18,221.13 P.

(2.) On 30th July 1977, respondent No. 2 herein viz., the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act wrote to the Collector of Bombay (Respondent No. 3) directing the Collector to recover the aforesaid amount from respondents Nos. 4 to 9 herein expeditiously and. if necessary, by adopting coercive measures in that behalf. It was stated in the said letter that under Section 15 (5) of the Payment of Wages Act, subject to the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, the aforesaid amount was recoverable by the Collector as if the same constituted arrears of land revenue. The attention of the Collector was also drawn to the letter addressed by the State Government to all District Collectors containing direction to effect prompt recoveries. As no recovery was, in the meantime, made, the petitioners through the Rashtriya Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, the Union representing the petitioners herein, took up the matter with the Recovery Branch of Additional Collector. Bombay. The efforts of the said Union also did not succeed. It, however, appears that two of the partners appeared before the Recovery Officer and made an offer that they would pay towards the aforesaid claim an amount of Rs. 200 per month. The Union appears to have accepted the said offer, in pursuance whereof amounts at the rate of Rs. 200 per month were recovered by the Recovery Officer, the total recovery till Oct. 1980 being Rs. 3,400 on a claim of over Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(3.) The affidavit in reply filed with the Recovery Officer indicates that there were ownership flats at one stage standing in the names of some of the partners of the aforesaid partnership firm but were later on transferred in the names of their respective wives. As the Union accepted the offer of payment at the rate of Rs. 200 per month, the Recovery Officer does not appear to have taken any further steps save and except getting the aforesaid payment at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. It is hence that the petitioners-workmen have approached this Court.