The High Court disposed of the writ petition by staying disbursement of paid wages for six weeks, noting the employer's appeal and the lack of directive from the District Court to release funds.
Stayed disbursement of the amount in deposit with the 1st respondent for a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 3688 OF 2010
Between:
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, R.R.Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru and others
....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3688 OF 2010
O R D E R :
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Eluru, West Godavari District filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent–Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru dated 03.02.2010 as arbitrary and illegal.
The facts which are not in dispute are as under:
The 1st respondent herein, who is the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short ‘the Act’) passed an order on 12.01.2009 in case No.PW.1 of 2007 directing the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,85,268/- per month in the name of the respondents 2 to 33 herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Section 17(1) of the Act before the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District on 06.02.2010. Since there was delay in preferring the said appeal, the petitioner also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. Pending consideration of the said application by the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District, the 1st respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount deposited as per the order dated 12.01.2009 should not be disbursed to the workmen. Since the petitioner failed to respond, the impugned proceedings dated 03.02.2010 were issued requesting the respondents 2 to 33 to appear before the 1st respondent to receive the payment.
I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Admittedly, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount in terms of the order of the 1st respondent dated 12.01.2009 to the credit of PW.1
of 2007 before preferring the appeal in terms of the mandatory requirement under Section 17(1A) of the Act. As per Section 17(3) of the Act, where an appeal is preferred by the employer, the authority against whose decision the appeal has been preferred may, and if so directed by the Court before which the appeal has been preferred by the employer shall pending the decision of the appeal, withhold payment of any sum in deposit with it.
In the instant case, though the petitioner preferred an appeal against the decision of the 1st respondent, admittedly there is no direction till today by the District Court to withhold payment of the amount in deposit with the 1st respondent. Since the appeal time expired long back, the 1st respondent, having proposed to disburse the amount to the workmen, issued the impugned proceedings.
Though the said proceedings cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal and this Court by order dated 19.02.2010 stayed disbursement of the amount in deposit, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction that the amount in deposit with the 1st respondent shall not be disbursed for a period of six weeks from today. In the meanwhile, it is for the petitioner to pursue the appeal/application for condonation of delay and also to seek appropriate direction from the District Court for withholding payment of the amount in deposit with the 1st respondent.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
____________ Date: 08.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the pending appeal of the employer justifies staying the disbursement of wages despite the absence of a direction from the subordinate court.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Eluru
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
