R S GUPTA Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER DODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other direction or order for quashing the proceeding pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Doda, the officer under the payment of Wages Act.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred that respondent No: 3 filed an application under the payment of wages Act. herein after referred to as "the Act" before the Deputy Commissioner, Dode, the then authority under section 15 3 of the Act, 1956. Respondent No:3 has claimed payment on account of wages for labour engaged for forest work by him for the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 it is admitted, was not an employee of the petitioner and the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No:

(3.) WAS not that of an employer and an employee within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, the wages as claimed by respondent No. 3 are in respect of forests which have not declared as Industrial Establishment by the Act vide Section 2 ii f of the Act. The petitioner objected to the initiation of the proceedings on the ground that the Act was not applicable and that the respondent had no jurisdiction to hear the petition. Further, under section 1 5 of the Act no notification was issued by the Government of its intention to extend the provisions of the Act or any of them to any class of persons employed in any Industrial Establishment or in any class or group of Industrial Establishment. The petitioner has submitted that as the State Government has not extended the provisions of the Act to the Industrial Establishment of Forests as provided in section 1 5 of the Act, therefore, also the proceedings before respondent No: 1 are without Jurisdiction. 3 The petitioner has been resisted by the respondents on the ground that it is mis -conceived. In their objection the respondents have stated that the question raised by the petitioner can be determined by the Tribunal dealing with the application of respondent No. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, premature, as no order on the points raised by the respondent No. 3 have yet been passed on the application pending before the Tribunal. The contention of the petitioner is still to be considered and adjudicated upon by the respondent. Respondent No. 1 had fixed the case for arguments of the parties on 7. 7. 1973. On that day the counsel for the parties prayed for an adjournment. This was granted and the case was adjourned to 7 8. 1973. On this date respondents counsel was on leave and the case was taken up on 10. 9. 1973. The petitioner has, therefore, submitted to the jurisdiction of respondent No: 1 and it is he who is competent to decide the objections raised by the petitioner in the application made under the Act. Respondent No: 1 has not so far passed any order adverse to the petitioner and the petition being premature is liable to be dismissed on this account.