Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (6) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o. 2 from December 1986 to January 1988 and during that period, even though the company had declared lock out, the petitioner was called to attend the duty. The petitioner worked as a steno secretary to the management of respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner was not paid the amount of wages due, he filed Recovery Application No. 3121 of 1990 in the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, which was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated 2-12-1997 and the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 74,212 and in addition, an amount of Rs. 250 by way of costs. Since all the attempts made by the petitioner to get the amount failed, the petitioner obtained recovery certificate from the Labour Court with directions to recover the amount unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a stand that under the provisions of section 22(1), recovery of money claimed cannot be effected. 5. Mr. D.S. Vasavada, the learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner has worked with the respondent No. 2-company and, therefore, he is entitled to get his due wages from the respondent No. 2. In the submission of Mr. Vasavada, the just claim of the petitioner with regard to wages cannot be defeated on the basis of provisions of section 22. To substantiate this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajnagar Textile Mills v. Textile Labour Association [1998] 2 GLH 15. This Court, in the said case, after interpreting section 22 has held that in the context .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is necessary to consider the provisions of section 22 which provide for suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. The said section reads as under : "22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. - (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said Act or other law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... used in the aforesaid section is not intended to be made the basis for depriving workmen of the recovery of their wages payable to them under the SICA. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the workman had applied for recovery of his dues under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 33C provides method by which the workman can claim money which is due from the employer. Thus, the word distress used in section 22 is required to be construed so as not to deprive the wages earned by the workmen from their employer. Any narrow meaning to the word distress given excluding the wages would tantamount to defeating the purpose for which the Industrial Disputes Act, is enacted. I am fortified in my view by the decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on in para 14, has stated in no uncertain terms that it was not restraining or staying the payment of workers dues and the directions given by the High Court have to be honoured. May be such directions may have been given in pursuance of the dispute against the respondent No. 2 by the workers of its other units. However, the fact remains that the Bench of the BIFR has clarified that it was not restraining or staying the payment of workers dues and that it is not open for the respondent No. 2 to take shelter of section 22 of the SICA. 10. Considering the matter from all angles, I am of the opinion that the petition is required to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get due wages from respondent No. 2 as per the order passed in r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates