2017 (7) TMI 1098 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of case being P.W. Case No. 4/2017 pending before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur - application filed for unlawful deduction of the wages and not for delayed payment of the wages - Form-E - Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 - Held that - the learned Labour Court after receipt of the application filed by the respondent under Section 15(2) of the said Act, heard the case on admission and, accordingly, issued notice to the petitioner in Form-E of the said Rules. The writ petition filed by the petitioner appears to be premature, as final adjudication is yet to be done by the learned Labour Court, as mandated under Section 15(3) of the said Act. It is well settled that normally the writ petitions filed against the show cause notices issued by the authorities, should not be entertained, unless the same are without jurisdiction. On plain reading of Section 15(3) of the said Act, it is evident that a detail procedure of hearing has been delineated therein. So far as the apprehension of the petitioner that the learned Labour Court is in hurry, as the notice dated 17.06.2017 indicates that the case shall be disposed of on the next date of hearing i.e. 15.07.2017, the same is also unfounded. In fact, the notice dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure-4) has been issued under the proforma of Form-E prescribed in the said Rules itself. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to maintainability of the case under Payment of Wages Act, 1936; Allegations of unlawful deduction of wages; Premature filing of writ petition; Interpretation of Section 15(2) of the said Act; Haste in disposal of the case by the Labour Court.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a declaration that the case pending before the Labour Court is not maintainable under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and challenged the order admitting the case. The petitioner claimed financial distress, non-payment of wages since October 2016, and withdrawal of facilities. The respondent alleged unlawful wage deductions. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court hastily fixed the case for final disposal, denying a fair hearing. The Court noted that final adjudication was pending, and premature writ petitions should not be entertained unless lacking jurisdiction.

The petitioner contended that the Labour Court failed to distinguish between claims of delayed payment and unlawful deduction. Citing a Supreme Court case, the petitioner argued against premature disposal of cases. However, the Court found no merit in the distinction argument, stating that Section 15(2) of the Act does not require such differentiation. The Court emphasized the need for the competent authority to decide under Section 15(3) before final disposal.

Addressing the petitioner's concerns of haste, the Court examined the notice issued by the Labour Court and the prescribed Form-E. The Court clarified that the notice's language aligns with the procedural requirements of Section 15(2) and 15(3) of the Act. The Court dismissed the petitioner's apprehension of undue haste in case disposal, reiterating the statutory procedure for application adjudication. Concluding, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing proceedings but allowed the petitioner to present arguments before the Labour Court.

In the final disposition, the Court upheld the proceedings in the Labour Court, advising the petitioner to raise factual and legal contentions before the Labour Court. The writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned observations and directions, along with the disposal of the incidental application.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment comprehensively, addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding the maintainability of the case, unlawful wage deductions, premature filing of the writ petition, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the perceived haste in case disposal by the Labour Court.