Remanded

Oriental Integrity Facility Management Pvt.Ltd through Attorney Mrs. Heena Usmani v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024WP/1817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay quashed an order imposing compensation under Minimum Wages Act. It remanded proceedings to the Regional Labour Commissioner to consider the petitioner's objection that Payment of Wages Act, 1936 applies to non-payment disputes.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings remanded to Regional Labour Commissioner considering Payment of Wages Act, 1936 applicability.

Oriental Integrity Facility Management… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

Kishor

30 (9.1.24).doc

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7125 OF 2021 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1817 OF 2021

¶7

Oriental Integrity Facility Management Pvt.Ltd Through Attorney Heena Usmani Versus Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai And Ors.

¶8

…. Petitioner

¶9

…. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Rishi Ashok, a/w. Mr. Priyanka K. for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for State.

¶11

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 09 JANUARY 2024.

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

The challenge in the present petitions is to the Orders dated 19 August 2019 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Mumbai ( Authority ) under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 ( Minimum Wages Act ) imposing the compensation of Rs.60,16,880/- in respect of action of the Petitioner in not paying timely wages to 24 employees.

¶14

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Authority has erroneously applied provisions of Minimum Wages Act while determining quantum of compensation when Payment of Wages Act, 1936 specifies fixed amount of compensation. According to him, in the present case, there is no

Kishor

30 (9.1.24).doc

2/2

dispute about rates of wages payable to the employees. The dispute was about non-payment of wages. That the dispute about non-payment of wages can be determined under provisions of Payment of Wages Act and not under the Minimum Wages Act.

¶19

Be that as it may. It appears that petitioner was not heard at the time of passing of Order dated 19 August 2019 on account of it’s absence. Though the Authority cannot be entirely faulted in passing the Order in absence of Petitioner, who was given repeated chances, the absence of Petitioner has resulted in a situation where the objection raised about applicability of provisions of Payment of Wages Act has not been considered while passing of the impugned Order by the learned Authority. It would therefore be appropriate to remand the proceedings before the learned Authority so that objection of the Petitioner with regard to computation of compensation prescribed under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act can be considered by the learned Authority. Petitioner would be at liberty to rely upon various Judgments cited before this Court in respect of it’s contention that the dispute with regard to non-payment of wages need to be determined under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and not under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly proceedings before the learned Authority shall stand restored by setting aside the Orders dated 19 August 2019. Parties shall appear before the learned Authority on 29 January 2024 at 11.00 a.m. and obtain further directions. With the above directions, Writ Petitions are disposed of. All the contentions of the parties on merits are left open

¶20

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶21

Digitally signed by KISHOR KISHOR VISHNU VISHNU KAMBLEDate: KAMBLE 2024.01.12 10:17:48 +0530

Oriental Integrity Facility Management Pvt.Ltd through Attorney Mrs. Heena Usmani v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Integrity Facility Management Pvt.Ltd through Attorney Mrs. Heena Usmani v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Bapu Sawant and Ors. Vs Devidas Tukaram Sawant

M/S. K. M. Realty Thr. Its Partners Mr. Kunal Pankaj Raval and Mr.Manoj B. Vora Vs Diamond Hill Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Thr. Badsha Mahmood Ansari

Shamrao Bhaurao Dalave Vs Executive Engineer Mechanical Division and Anr.

B. E. Billimoria and Co. Limited vs Yashvant Rajaram Rane

Somaiya Vidyavihar Somaiya Bhavan vs Shekhar Deshmukh

Ganesh Industries vs Workers of Ganesh Industries through Sarva Mazdoor Sangh