Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
While arguing the matter much stress was given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to Section 4 of the 1978 Act which pertains to power of the Labour Commissioner. It was argued that the respondent No. -2 while exercising the powers under 1978 Act had to "ascertain" the wages bill of the establishment in respect of which the alleged default has been committed. By placing reliance on the word "ascertain" Sri P.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that ascertainment would entail at least a summary investigation so as to ascertain the facts which was a requirement imposed by the 1978 Act upon the Labour Commissioner which he failed to discharge in as much as while passing the order dated 17.8.1998, he has simply rejected the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and by contending that as the petitioner has not given any information under Form-III as such he has no alternative but to treat the application filed by the workmen i.e. respondent No. -1 as true and proceeded to direct for payment of the amount of approximately Rs. 57 lakhs. Thus, it is contended that once no ascertainment was done by the respondent No. -2 as such the impugned order would be bad in the eyes of law. {Para 6}
12. The word "ascertain" has been defined in the Oxford Advanced learned Dictionary 5th edition as "to investigate so that one knows and is certain; to find out". Thus, a duty was cast upon the Labour Commissioner to have first ascertained as to whether the wages which were being sought for by the respondent No. -1 were actually due or not particularly taking into consideration the fact that upon notice being issued on the application filed by the respondent No. -1 under the provisions of 1978 Act, the petitioner company instead of submitting a parawise reply, submitted its preliminary objection pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner to entertain the matter. While rejecting the said preliminary objections and simultaneously passing the impugned order dated 17.8.1998 for payment of Rs. 57,59,790.90/- the respondent No. -2 should have been itself satisfied about the actual amount due to the respondent No. -1 after ascertaining the wages bill raised by the respondent No. -1 even if no reply in Form III, as provided in Rule 4 of the 1981 Rules, was forthcoming from the petitioner and it is only after exercising its power given under Section 3 and 4 of the 1978 Act for ascertainment of wages bill that the respondent No. -2 could have proceeded to pass the order for payment of the wages as demanded by the respondent No. -1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Service Single No. 5202 of 1998
Decided On: 15.03.2018
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Karmchari Sabha
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Abdul Moin, J.
Citation: (2018) 157 FACLR 521: (2018) 4 ADJ 538 (ALL), MANU/UP/1381/2018.
