The High Court of Bombay vacated an interim stay on a Labour Court order that restrained the respondent from recovering penal rent from the applicant's wages under the Payment of Wages Act, citing the livelihood implications of wages.
Interim stay on the Labour Court order restraining recovery of penal rent from the applicant's wages was vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1374 OF 2008
In
WRIT PETITION NO.8645 OF 2003
Shri Rajendra Kamlakar : Applicant
(Orig.Respondent)
V/s.
Union of India : Respondent
(Central Railways) (Orig.Petitioner)
Ms Surekha Jangam for the applicant.
Ms Suchitra Kamble i/b. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2009.
P.C.
1. The applicant (original respondent) has moved this
application for vacating stay.
2. In the Writ Petition, the respondent herein (original
petitioner) has challenged the order of the authority
under the Payment of Wages Act i.e. Second Labour Court,
Pune. By the impugned order, the Labour Court has
restrained the respondent from recovering penal rent from
the monthly wages of the applicant. This Court has
-: 2 :-
granted an interim stay to the effect and operation of the
said order. According to the learned counsel for the
applicant, the stay was granted because the respondent has
stated that they would initiate proceedings under the
provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and they
have not done so. Apart from this fact, it is necessary
to examine the prima facie merits of the matter. The
authority has restrained the respondent from deducting
penal rent from the monthly wages of the applicant, after
observing that at no point of time any disciplinary action
was initiated against the applicant, the respondent has
alleged sub-letting. It appears that no evidence is
brought on record by the respondent to point out
sub-letting by the applicant. In this view of the matter,
having regard to the fact that it is a question of wages
which means livelihood and survival, I am of view that the
stay is liable to be vacated and is hereby vacated. This
order shall not come in the way of the respondent for
taking any action in respect of the applicant. Order
accordingly.
S.A. BOBDE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim stay on the Labour Court order restraining recovery of penal rent from the applicant's wages ought to be vacated.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Rajendra Kamlakar
Union of India
S.A. BOBDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court