Commissioner Municipal Corporation Vs Raghuveer Singh Thakur

Raghuveer Singh Thakur S/o Shri Rikhan Singh Thakur Skilled Worker, Water Department, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, R/o Kostapara, Near Shri Hanuman Ji Mandir, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

11/09/2024

¶15

Heard on admission.

¶16

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of order dated 21.03.2023 passed by Industrial Court, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.02/P.W. Act/B-II/2022 whereby, an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act,

¶17

2 / 6

¶18

1936(henceforth ‘the Act, 1936’) against the award dated 02.02.2022 passed in Case No.13/P.W.Act/2014/Civil by the Authority under the Act, 1936 i.e. Labour court, Dhamtari directing the petitioner to make payment of arrears of deducted wages amounting to Rs.72,258/- together with the payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent, has been dismissed.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that respondent workmen had approached the labour court vide application under Section 15(2) of the Act, 1936 complaining that payment of wages was made less than the enhanced collector rate for the period from 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2014 i.e. 42 months and difference of wages amounts to Rs.72,258/- and also made a specific plea at para 14 of the said application with regard to condonation of delay and assigned reasons for not filing the said application within 12 months. Petitioner employer has filed the reply and denied the claim made by respondent employee. In the application, respondent employee stated that he was not paid wages as per the revised collector rate and was only paid Rs.3,212 per month, whereas time to time collector rate kept changed. At para 9 of reply, petitioner stated that as the workmen has received the wages, therefore, he cannot challenge the same and the particulars which were given by the employee have no basis. After scrutiny of the claim by the labour court, it was found that less wages was paid to the employee and unnecessary deduction has been made to the tune of Rs.72,258/-. The learned labour court admitted the claim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act, 1936 “not exceeding 10

¶20

3 / 6

¶21

times the amount deducted”. Against the said award, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner and the learned appellate court found that the delay was properly condoned vide order dated 10.01.2019, which was not challenged by the petitioner, and affirmed the award by holding that the learned labour Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 319 of Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961(henceforth ‘the Act, 1961’), no legal notice has been served and no suit shall be instituted without expiration of 2 months period of the said statutory notice. For the sake of brevity, Section 319 reads thus:-

¶23

“319. Bar of suit in absence of notice.

¶24

(1) No suit shall be instituted against any Council or any Councillor, officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any such Council, Councillor, officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act, until the expiration of two months next after a notice, in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, has been, in the case of a Council, delivered or left at its office, and, in the case of any such member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered to him or left at his office or usual place of abode; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.

¶25

(2) Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within eight months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action.

¶26

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any suit instituted under Section 54 of the [Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877).] [Now Specific Relief Act, 1963.]”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent employee himself has filed the application after about 4 years, therefore he shall not get the compensation amount which has been determined by the learned labour court to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner

¶28

4 / 6

¶29

institution. He would further submit that respondent employee is a temporary employee and was called time to time by the petitioner as per necessity. He further submits that the burden to prove the case lies on the respondent and he cannot take benefit out of the weakness of the petitioner organization.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶31

The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was enacted with a laudable object with regard to delays which occur in the payment of wages. When unnecessary deduction has been made from wages, the employee has a right to raise a claim arising out of such deduction in wages or delay in payment of wages under Section 15 of the Act, 1936. There is a stipulation that any such application shall be presented within 12 months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made as per first proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the said act. However, the second proviso of the said sub-section enables the authority that any application may be admitted after the said period of 12 months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making application within such period.

¶32

In the case at hand, reasons have been assigned with regard to condonation of delay, which have been examined by the labour court and no fault has been found by the learned appellate court taking into consideration the benevolent object of legislature and the reason assigned by the workman who has no bargaining power when the

¶33

5 / 6

¶34

municipal corporation is paying less than the wages which were determined from time to time as per the collector rate. There is no dispute on such proposition that the municipal corporation is legally obligated to make payment to workmen on the basis of statutory rules applicable to the concerned employee. Further the petitioner employer has not disputed the fact that in the organization in respect of respondent employee, the payment of wages has to be made as per the collector rate. In the instant case, though the workmen has calculated the wage difference in a specific manner, but the employer has made an evasive reply in the written statement and has given no specific details to revert the same. Even in this petition, it has not been disputed that the respondent employee was not working under Water Supply Department of the municipality as an electrician skilled labour for the period from 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2014 for which, difference of wages has been claimed in comparison to the collector rate and the amount has already been paid. As regards the statutory notice, there is a separate mechanism under the Act, 1936 and under the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937(henceforth ‘the Rules, 1937’) the claim has to be preferred in Form A i.e. Form of Individual Application and Section 319 of Act, 1961 deals with bar of suit in absence of notice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no such statutory requirement(legal notice) considering the proforma of Form A under the Rules ,1937 read with Act, 1936 is needed when any such proceeding is drawn, so the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner on such score is also not tenable.

¶35

In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the

¶36

6 / 6

¶37

concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned labour court and the appellate court with regard to the unnecessary deductions and considering the compensation, which has been awarded according to the terms of the legislature, this Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or manifest perversity in the order impugned warranting any interference invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of the writ court.

¶38

Resultantly, instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Avinash

Commissioner Municipal Corporation v. Raghuveer Singh Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner Municipal Corporation v. Raghuveer Singh Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Motilal Verma Vs Smt. Champa Sahu

Anwar Haque Vs Sheikh Rasool

Ravinderjeet Singh Vs Avinash Kaur

Tameshwar Sahu @ Pakla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Teeshan Sinha Vs Mukesh Komra

Kumari Suraiya Khanam and Ors. Vs Pratap Kumar and Ors.