EVEREADY INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this LPA, judgment dated: 07 -04 -1997 of Learned Single Judge of this court in Service Writ Petition No. 5591/1996, captioned Eveready Industries Employees Union Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, is under challenge. The Appeal has arisen in the following circumstances: -

(2.) EVEREADY Industries Employees Union (herein -after for short Union/Petitioner) filed a writ, seeking directions against Eveready Industries India Ltd. and General Manager, Union Carbide Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2 and 3) in the nature of Mandamus, to pay wages/salary to the employees -workmen of the Respondent -2, whose attendance stood marked from April 1996 at the factory site pursuant to the notice of the Management and to continue the employees of the factory on its rolls un -interruptedly in future and prayed for further directions against respondent No.l, State of Jammu and Kashmir, for taking appropriate action against the other respondents for failing to pay wages/salary to the workmen/employees of the factory from April 1996 and for ensuring continuance in manufacturing operations in the factory at Khonmoh, Srinagar and for payment of wages to the workmen/employees on regular basis and punctually.

(3.) PETITIONERS are workmen/employees of Eveready Industries India Ltd. formerly known as Union Carbide. Petitioners were employed at its unit at Industrial Estate Khonmoh. Eveready Industries India Ltd. is a public limited Coy. incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with its Registered Office at 1 -Middleton Street, Calcutta. The unit at Khonmoh was established in 1983. It was engaged in manufacture of the dry cell Batteries. The commercial production started in the factory in December, 1983. In 1991, even in worst and adverse conditions, the Khonmoh Unit of the Industry was functioning and though at some stage respondent 2 and 3 requested respondent 1, State of Jammu and Kashmir for closure of the Unit, but respondent 1, did not respond and refused to effect closure of the Unit. For that a separate writ has been filed at Jammu. The authority refused to act under the Payment of Wages Act on being approached for the reason that the income of each of the employees of the Union being over Rs. 1000/ -. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no authority and jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint or to redress any such grievance(s). With the dismissal of the petition by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Union filed the writ claiming that though Respondent 2 is not an instrumentality or authority or limb of the State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, but a|& the same, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The employees/workmen are regularly working in the factory premises and marking their attendance. They have been paid salary un -interruptedly till ending March, 1996. Despite marking their attendance and being regularly present in the factory premises, they are not being paid after April, 1996 on one or other pretext. The attendance is being marked pursuant to a notice of the Management, advising the employees to mark the attendance of workmen and to clear absenteeism, if any, in the same month (Annexure -B). The information as per Annexure -B was required to be fed to Headquarters at Delhi.