LEELA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the Labour inspector under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Labour Circle, Solan, Himachal Pradesh filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 in the Court of commissioner under the Payment of Wages act on April 20, 1993. The Commissioner vide order dated October 8, 1996 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 45,357/- and Rs. 525/- as costs. The respondent No. 2 moved an application for the recovery of delayed wages from the petitioner in case No. 1/13-A-93. The commissioner vide letter dated January 19, 1998 referred the matter to the Judicial magistrate Ist Class, Arki under Section 15 (5) (b) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki, district Solan vide order dated October 5, 2001 after disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure issued warrant of sale for attaching the property of the petitioner. Thereafter the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate passed the order on November 29, 2001 whereby he issued fresh sale warrants on old Process Fees.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the orders dated October 5, 2001 read with order dated november 29, 2001. The primary submission of mr. Sanjeev Bhushan is that the orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, arki, District Solan are without jurisdiction. In other words, his submission is that since the commissioner was himself discharging the duties of Magistrate, he alone was competent to pass the orders under Section 15 (5) (a) and he could not have referred the matter to the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arki.

(3.) MR. Rajiv Rai appearing vice counsel for respondent No. 2 has supported the order dated October 5, 2001 read in conjunction with order dated November 29, 2001.