South Arcot District MunicipalPanchayat Workers Union v. The Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Chennai & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:02.11.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.19288 OF 2009South Arcot District MunicipalPanchayat Workers Unionrep. By its Secretary T.R.Ramnath... Petitioner vs.1.The Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Chennai.2.The District Collector, Villupuram District.3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Gingee, Villupuram District.5.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vallam, Villupuram District.6.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Melmalayanoor, Villupuram District.7.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vanoor, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondentto implement the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.46337/08/E3dated 26.06.2008 and further direct respondents 3 to 7 to pay themonthly salary and bonus immediately to the members of the petitionerunion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner.. Mr.K.VasudevanFor Respondents..Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya, Addl. Govt. PleaderORDERThe petitioner is an Association of Municipal Panchayat Workers,working in the various panchayat unions in the Villupuram District.The petitioner Association filed the present writ petition seekingfor a direction to implement the order of the first respondent dated26.06.2008 and for a further direction to respondents 3 to 7 to paythe monthly salary and bonus immediately to the members of thepetitioner Union. 2.In the order dated 26.06.2008, the first respondent directedall the District Collectors to pass orders on the representation madeby the petitioner Association stating that all the overhead tankoperators and the sanitary workers should be paid salary on or before5th day of every month and also they should be paid exgratia bonusimmediately. Those who are cleaning tank also should be paidsimilarly and further action should be taken. On the furtherrepresentation made by the petitioner Association, the secondrespondent District Collector found that the seven panchayat unionscoming under the District have not paid exgratia payment for thepongal period to these workers. In Rishivandhiyam panchayat union,the workers were not paid for a period of three years. In respect ofother panchayat unions, it was not paid for two years. It is underthese circumstances. the petitioner Association has filed the presentwrit petition. 3.It is stated in para 3 of the affidavit that instead of payingthe salary on a month to month basis, there was undue delay in makingpayments by the various panchayat unions. If the panchayat unionshave no sufficient funds, they should raise loans and disburse salaryand in no case, workers should be paid beyond the wage period of amonth. Even when representations were made to the second respondent-District Collector (who is also the Inspector of Panchayats), thesame state of affairs continued. It is under these circumstances, thefirst respondent issued a circular to adhere to the payment of themonthly salary on or before 5th of every month.4.On notice from this Court Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya, learnedAdditional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents broughtto the notice of this Court, a written instruction given by thesecond respondent District Collector stating that the funds forvarious Blocks have already been released for the year 2008-2009 andfor the year 2009-2010 and the Block Development Officers viz.,respondents 3 to 7 have been suitably instructed to pay the pendingbills received from the Assistant/Additional Educational Officers,which are due to the Sweepers, immediately. It was also stated thatthose Block Development Officers have assured him to adhere to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time schedule in making the payments. It was further intimated thatamounts have been released to the various Blocks for making paymentsto the contingent sweepers who are employed by the respectivepanchayat unions. The learned counsel also produced a letter sent bythe Treasury Officer, Villupuram, releasing the funds towards thepayment for the employees working under various panchayat unions. 5.However, Mr.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitionervehemently submitted that this is a case of unjust exploitation andthe authorities should not be allowed to go scot-free. The workerswho are lowly paid cannot be kept waiting for their monthly payment.If such things are allowed, it is nothing but a bonded slaveryadopted by the State. Therefore, he wanted a separate direction to beissued from this Court. 6.The grievance projected by the petitioner shows the sorrystate of affairs in the various panchayat unions. It is needless tostate that the payment for wages by an employer has been codifiedeven during the colonial period by the enactment called as Payment ofWages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 5 ofthe said Act clearly stipulates the wages of every person in variousestablishments should be paid before the expiry of the 10th day, afterthe last day of the wage period in respect of which, the wages arepayable. Section 6 of the Act clearly stipulates that wages to bepaid in current coin or currency notes. Section 3 of the said Actfixes the responsibility for payment of wages on the employer. Thisis to re-emphasise that the panchayat union, being an employer,having the responsibility for making payment. Therefore, they cannotpostpone the payment on the ground of non-release of funds by someother authority. 7.Under Section 4 of the said Act, it is clearly stipulated thatevery person responsible for the payment of wages, shall fix theperiod in respect of which such wages shall be payable and by virtueof Section 4(2), no wage period shall exceed beyond one month. It isalso stipulated that the Inspectors under the Act must ensure promptpayment of wages. In case of non-payment, the authorities have beenappointed under Section 15 of the Act as controlling authorities. 8.The contravention of provisions of the Act has also been madeas a penal offence under Section 20. The authority who empowers to gointo the question of delayed payment, has also been empowered underSection 16(2), to award maximum compensation in case of unpaid wages,Section 15(3) of the Act enables the authority to direct the refundto the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of thedelayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation, notexceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and notexceeding three thousand rupees but not less than one thousand fivehundred rupees in the latter case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.By virtue of the amendment made by the State to Section 2 (h),the State Government is empowered to notify the establishments orundertakings, which the State Government, by a notification in theofficial gazette declared to be an industrial establishment for thepurpose of this Act. The employment in the municipalities orpanchayat unions are squarely covered by the provisions of the Actand therefore there is no escape for the respondents that in case ofdelayed payments, they will have to face action by the employees forrecovery of the delayed payments including the compensation to beprovided under the Act, apart from being prosecuted for violation ofthe Act. 10.Though this Court suggested to the learned counsel for thepetitioner to have recourse to the authority under Section 15 of theAct for claiming compensation, the learned counsel submitted that thepower under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot becircumscribed by any provisions of that Act and this Court aloneshould grant relief to the petitioner. The valuable power availableto the workman, which is not only available very near to their workplace but also enables him to get the compensation for the delayedpayment. It is not clear as to why the petitioner union has movedthis Court with an omnibus prayer for making timely payment. It isunnecessary for this Court to remind the statutory guarantee alreadyavailable to the workman. But since the matter has been brought tothis Court, it was felt necessary to direct the authorities abouttheir obligation to abide by the law and to scrupulously follow thevarious labour legislations including the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 11.In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction to respondents 3 to 7 to immediately disburse theamounts already released by the second respondent forthwith. They arealso directed to pay wages of the workmen on or before 5th of everymonth as directed by the first respondent Commissioner. In case ofany infraction, it is always open to the workmen to instituteappropriate proceedings in a manner known to law. No costs.mmiSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Chennai.2.The District Collector, Villupuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Gingee, Villupuram District.5.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vallam, Villupuram District.6.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Melmalayanoor, Villupuram District.7.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vanoor, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.1CC to Mr.K.Vasudevan, Advocate (SR.582381CC to The Government Pleader (SR.58374)W.P.No.19288 of 2009KGK (CO)SS (13.11.2009)