High Court · 2012

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.31337 AND 31941 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: - These two writ petitions are interconnected and between the same parties and raises similar questions. Hence, they are heard together on 01.02.2012 as well as on this day. After hearing both the learned counsel, this Court was of the opinion that the matters can be disposed of on a primary question without necessity of going into the details of various other contentions of either of the parties. Hence, keeping in view that proposed order in mind, the facts necessary are mentioned below: The petitioner herein is the Management of the DBR Mills in question, whereas respondent No.5 is the Association of Workers, and respondent Nos.6 to 38 are the individual workers, who claim to have been displaced by the closure of the said Mill. Smt.Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.5 to 38; learned Government Pleader for Labour representing respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Smt.Sesharajyam, learned counsel representing the petitioner- Management, have been heard. Claiming non-payment of wages for the period from 01.03.1992 to 31.05.2010, respondent Nos.5 to 38 filed application in I.A.No.2 of 2010 in P.W.2 of 2010 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936-respondent No.3 herein. Similar application in I.A.No.3 of 2010 in P.W.3 of 2010 was also filed claiming gratuity and other terminal benefits. Those applications were considered by respondent No.3. The said applications were contested by the petitioner- Management including on the question of delay of about 18 years in filing the said applications by the workers-respondent Nos.5 to 38. On contest, however, the Authority has allowed the said applications and has condoned the delay under the impugned order, which has been questioned by the petitioner-Management in these two writ petitions. During the hearing, it was evident that several proceedings arising out of the order of BIFR, dated 20.10.1987, are still pending and have not yet attained finality. It appears that an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner-Management is lying as deposit awaiting final orders with respect to the said order of BIFR questioned in the superior forums. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.5 to 38 approached respondent No.3 by the aforesaid applications apprehending that the litigation would take some more time and that they would be deprived of the wages and the benefits in the meanwhile. One of the primary contentions raised by respondent Nos.5 to 38 is that the closure of the petitioner-Mill itself is not in accordance with law. However, this position is contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the question that needs to be resolved in the first instance is with respect to the delay on the part of respondent Nos.5 to 38 in approaching respondent No.3 by the aforesaid two applications viz., I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay in presentation of the said claims. The delay being of 18 years, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though it was seriously opposed on various grounds, the order impugned does not take into consideration all those contentions and the delay is condoned practically without giving any reasons. While learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 38 tried to sustain the impugned order by pointing out the reasons mentioned at page 5 of the order and submit that respondent No.3 being an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, strict requirements of an order passed by judicial officer may not be applicable to respondent No.3. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. A reading of the impugned order shows that respondent No.3 has noted down the contentions of the petitioner as well as the respondents before him, but while passing order as to condonation has hardly considered and given findings on any of the said aspects and condoned the delay only by recording the following reasons in the impugned order: “ After examining all the above at this juncture, I am not inclined to comment on the lapses on the part of applicants nor the respondent management. I am of the opinion that in order to decide the case on merits and to examine the various issues raised by the parties and to illicit the truth, the inordinate delay in filing the case by the applicants is condoned.” The rest of the order apart from the extracted portion above are all contentions recorded by respondent No.3. It is also evident that the matter of contest with regard to the ground for condonation of delay as pleaded by respondent Nos.5 to 38 herein on the one hand and the writ petitioner on the other hand, is required to be considered and dealt with by respondent No.3 by giving his findings and reasons in support of the said findings. Respondent No.3 being a quasi-judicial authority is required to apply his mind to the question involved and reach the conclusions by giving reasons in accordance with law. The order impugned being not satisfactory from the aforesaid stand point, I deem it more just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matters to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Both the parties shall have liberty to substantiate their respective contentions before respondent No.3, who shall hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. Since the matter relates to wages of the workers, it would be just and appropriate for respondent No.3 to consider and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

05.01.2012 _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.31337 AND 31941 OF 2011

05.01.2012