The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as Article 227 is not a preferential mode of redressal.
Petitioner directed to file appeal under Section 17 within three weeks.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 15704 of 2010(O& M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Misc.No. 17290 OF 2010 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 15704 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:12th January, 2011
Phool Chand
.......Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Labour Commissioner and another
........Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present: Mr. Phool Chand, petitioner in person.
Mr. APS.Mann, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
Mahesh Grover, J.(Oral)
The claim of the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was declined by the Competent Authority vide impugned order dated 27.08.2010. The petitioner who is appearing in person has impugned
the same order and contended that the said order is arbitrary and
2
Civil Writ Petition No. 15704 of 2010(O& M)
erroneous and liable to be set aside.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this impugned order herein is appealable as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner in response thereto, has reproduced an extract of the judgment at page 15(Annexure P-1) to contend that the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is equally efficacious.
I have heard the petitioner and have also considered the relevant objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the petitioner. The judgment relied upon reveals that there is a right of appeal which is a statutory remedy available to a person against whom an order has been passed under the provisions of the Act and Article 227 is not a preferential mode of redressal of such a grievance.
Section 17 of the Act stipulates that any order which has been passed pursuant to the grievances raised by the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Act is liable to be remedied in the event of such a grievance being raised before the Appellate Authority.
Accordingly, since there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner of filing an appeal pursuant to Section 17 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with an observation that the petitioner may avail himself of the remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. In case, such
Civil Writ Petition No. 15704 of 2010(O& M) 3
an appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the question of limitation thereof, shall not stand in the way of the
petition. The writ petition is disposed of as such.
All the pending applications are also disposed of.
[MAHESH GROVER] JUDGE
12th January, 2011 Shivani Kaushik
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Judgment at page 15(Annexure P-1)Referred¶23
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Phool Chand
Assistant Labour Commissioner
another
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
