NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
SUBJECT: LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAW-Ⅱ
SEMESTER: Ⅸ
TOPIC: Case Analysis of “Project Manager, Rajasthan State
Tungsten Development Corporation and Ors. v. Authority under
Payment of Wages Act, [RLW 1998(2) Raj 994]”
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:
AYUSH ANAND PROF. MAHENDRA SONI
2016BALLB133 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Prof.
Mahenda Soni for his exemplary guidance and constant encouragement throughout the course of
this project work. The blessings, help and guidance given by him, time to time shall carry me a
long way in the journey of life. The researcher considers himself privileged and blessed to have
gotten the opportunity to have made this work under his aegis. Lastly, I would like to express my
greatest gratitude to the people who have helped & supported me throughout my project. I thank
my batch-mates for their constant encouragement and also the Gyan Mandir staff for providing
us with all the assistance without which this assignment would not be possible.”
AYUSH ANAND
2016BALLB133
2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................2
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.......................................................................................4
MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE.............................................................................................5
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT.....................................................................................6
CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES.....................................................................7
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS..............................................................................................9
PRECEDENTS RELIED ON BY THE COURT..........................................................................11
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT...................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................17
3|Page
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
FULL NAME OF THE CASE: Project Manager, Rajasthan State Tungsten Development
Corporation and Ors. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act
CITATION: RLW 1998(2) Raj 994
COURT: Rajasthan High Court
“In the present case, 11 petitions have been preferred to the Rajasthan High Court by the Project
Manager, Rajasthan State Tungsten Development Corporation and Ors. in order to quash the
orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority (to be hereinafter referred to as the Authority
on the applications of Bhanwaroo, Sundari, Man Singh, Rajendra Singh, Devi Singh, Chunilal
Chhoga, Heera, Sundari Devi, Krishna and Prabhu (to be hereinafter referred to as the
applicants) against the petitioners (to be hereinafter referred to as the Corporation).”
“In all the 11 applications filed before the Payment of Wages Authority, the Authority concluded
that the Corporation either did not appear and file reply or failed to lead evidence in rebuttal.
Therefore, the cases proceeded ex parte. The Authority directed the Corporation to make
payment of the wages of the applicants, which were not paid to them for the periods stated in
their applications along with 10 times compensation. The Corporation then made applications
before the Authority for recalling the directions given ex parte in all the 11 cases, but the
applications were dismissed by the Payment of Wages Authority. Since common questions of
law and facts have arisen in all these writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this Order. Being aggrieved, the above mentioned 11 petitions have been
preferred by the Project Manager Rajasthan State Tungsten Development Corporation and
another to quash the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority.”
SIZE OF BENCH: Single Bench
NAMES OF JUDGES: Hon’ble Justice G.L. Gupta
NAME OF COUNSELS: Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Parihar, learned
counsel for the Respondents.
4|Page
MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE
“The present case arose out of a dispute between The Rajasthan State Tungsten Development
Corporation and its employees. The applicants were charge sheeted for absence from duty and
their wages were deducted. To raise the dispute, Authority under Payment of Wages Act was
reached and a total of 11 applications were filed. In all the 11 applications filed before the
Payment of Wages Authority, the Corporation either did not appear and file reply or failed to
lead evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, the cases were proceeded ex-parte. The Authority directed
the Corporation to make payment of the wages of the applicants, which were not paid to them for
the periods stated in their applications along with 10 times compensation. The Corporation then
made applications before the Authority for recalling the directions given ex parte in all the 11
cases, but the” applications were dismissed by the Payment of Wages Authority. Since common
questions of law and facts have arisen in all these writ petitions, they have been heard together.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
5|Page
The issues before the Hon’ble High Court were;
Whether the dispute raised by the applicants was an Industrial dispute and therefore the
Authority had no jurisdiction to give directions.
“The applicants before the Authority, had absented from duty without any cause and for
that enquiry was pending against them and even charge-sheets were served to them for
their absence and therefore the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications.
It has been further averred that in some of the cases the Corporation was not afforded
opportunity to file reply, and in others it was not given an opportunity to lead evidence
and the cases were proceeded ex-parte against it.
Regarding the proceedings under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which
are summary in nature, whether the Authority could go into the justification of not doing
the job entrusted to the applicants. Basically, was this an incidental matter.”
CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES
6|Page
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
“The contentions of the learned counsel for the Corporation was that the applicants had absented
from duty without any cause and for that enquiry was pending against them and therefore the
Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He submitted that in the proceedings Under
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short 'Act of 1936') which are summary in
nature, the Authority could not go into the justification of not doing the job entrusted to the
applicants as this was not the incidental matter.
His submission was that since the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain such type of
disputes, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. It was prayed that his application made in
the Writ Petition No. 1246/1991 praying for filing one document, which is the order of the
Labour Department of the Government of India dated February 21, 1995 referring the dispute to
the Industrial Tribunal, be allowed.”
The cases cited by the advocate are as follows:
Smt. Indu v. Municipal Council 1991 WLR (5) Raj 245.
Abdul Wahid v. Authority 1995-II-LLJ-1079 (Raj).
Municipal Council v. Khubilal 1990 (2) RLR 657.
Union of India v. Chhaganlal 1974 LIC 497.
M. S. Khan v. Director 1972 LIC 36.
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
7|Page
“The learned counsel for the Authority contended by pointing out the fact that remedy against the
impugned orders was available to the Corporation under the Act of 1936, which they have not
availed, submitted that this Court in its discretionary power under Article 226 should not interfere,
and the petitions should be dismissed on this preliminary ground.
It was further contended that the Corporation had been given opportunities to defend the
applicants, but they chose to remain absent and the orders are based on the evidence produced in
the case, which should not be disturbed. He urged that the additional document should not be
accepted on record in the writ of certiorari, more so when the document was not in existence
when the Authority had considered the matter, He canvassed that the deductions of the wages
were wrongful and therefore the Authority was justified in entertaining the matter under Section
15 of the Act of 1936.”
The cases cited by the advocate are as follows:
Ambica Mills v. State of Gujarat 1961 AIR SC 970.
V.K. Govindswami v. Navjappa 1972 LIC 1393.
State of Rajasthan v. Chokharam 1994 (1) WLN 263.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
8|Page
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
“(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of
an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any
legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his
behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permissions of the
authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-
section (3):”
“Provided that every such application shall be presented within twelve months from the date on
which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of wages
due to be made, as the case may be:
Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of twelve months
when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the
application within such period.”
“(3) When any application under Sub-section (2) is entertained, the authority shall hear the
applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under Section
3, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and, after such further inquiry (if any) as may be
necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person is
liable under this Act, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the
payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority
may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case not exceeding
twenty five rupees in the latter, and even if the amount deducted or the delayed wages are paid
before the disposal of the application, direct the payment of such compensation, as the authority
may think fit, not exceeding twenty five rupees.”
“Provided that no direction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed
wages if the authority is satisfied that the delay was due to:
(a) a bona fide error or bona fide dispute as to the amount payable to the employed person, or
9|Page
(b) the occurrence of an emergency, or the existence of exceptional circumstances, such that the
person responsible for the payment of the wages was unable, though exercising reasonable
diligence, to make prompt payment, or
(c) the failure of the employed person to apply for or accept payment.”
Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
“(2) Deduction from the wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds only, namely:
(a) xxx
(b) deductions for absence from duty,
(c) xxx”
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949.
“Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.”
PRECEDENTS RELIED ON BY THE COURT
10 | P a g e
DR. SMT. KUNTESH GUPTA V. MANAGEMENT OF INDU KANYA
MAHAVIDYALAYA, SITAPUR (U.P.) AND ORS., AIR 1987 SC 2186
While dealing with the issue that whether existence of an alternative remedy completely bars the
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, specially in matter of workmen. The court relied on
this judgement wherein it has been observed as under:
“Further, it is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the
maintainability of a writ petition, when an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the
High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on
the ground of existence of alternative remedy. In the instant case, the Vice-Chancellor had no
power to review and the exercise of such power was absolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the
order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on review was a nullity, such an order be challenged
before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 was not justified in dismissing the writ
petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under Section
68 of U.P. State Universities Act.”
“Therefore, no sweeping proposition can be laid down that the existence of a statutory
alternative remedy bars the entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
AMBICA MILLS LTD. AND ORS. V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR., (1964) 0
GLR 446
In this case the controversy was whether the person who had filed an application before the
Authority was an employee of the management or not. This was held to be matter incidental to
the claim filed before the Authority.
“The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction to decide the questions
incidental to claims. The point for consideration is whether the matter of deduction of wages on
account of absence is incidental to the claim made by the applicant and the Authority can decide
the justification or otherwise of the deduction”
11 | P a g e
The Court held that though the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is
limited, yet it can decide questions incidental to the claim.
REGIONAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA V. JANSUKHLAAL
CHHAGANLAL NAGORI, (2003) 1 GLR 614
While dealing with the matter of deduction of wages on account of absence from duty, the
learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court observed as follows:
“The jurisdiction of the authority acting under Section 15 of the Act will extend to determine
whether the deduction was in respect of any of the items mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section
7. If he finds that the deductions were for an item not covered by any of these clauses, he would
be entitled to award the amount. Similarly, he will have jurisdiction to enquire as an incidental
matter as to whether an employed person was in fact absent or not. Once he finds that the
person was absent and deduction was made for his absence from duty, his jurisdiction to enquiry
further comes to an end. He will have no jurisdiction to enquire about the justification of the
absence. Whether an employee was justified in absenting himself from duty or not has to be
determined by the employer.”
This court fully agrees with the observations made in the abovementioned case.
ABDUL WAHEED V. AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1994 (1) WLC 545
The Hon’ble court in this case laid down the following observations:
“Under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain
any claim which raises complicated issues of law and facts.”
In the present case it is certainly a complicated question as to whether the employer was justified
or not in charge-sheeting its employee for his absence from duty.
M.A. KHAN V. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, N.R., 1969 CLRE 2023
The court in this case discussed about the jurisdiction of the Authority where the deduction was
made under Clause (h) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7. In this case two questions arose,
12 | P a g e
“The first question being, whether the authority who had directed the deduction of the wages was
competent to pass such order, the High Court held on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court
that Rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code has statutory force and an order passed
under that rule by an Authority was correctly passed.”
“The second question arose was that the authority who directed the deduction of wages had not
followed the principle of natural justice. The Division Bench held that this matter could not be
gone into by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act as its jurisdiction was limited and it
could not sit as Court of Appeal over the order passed by the Railway Authority under Rule
2044.”
On the principle enunciated in the abovementioned case, it can be understood that once the
employer comes with the plea that he has taken decision to charge-sheet his employee for
misconduct, the jurisdiction of the authority under the Act comes to an end as this cannot be said
to be the matter incidental to the claim made by the applicant.
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
13 | P a g e
The Hon’ble court started by classifying the applications in 3 different heads and then went on
stating the cases in which the Authority had the power to decide the dispute. The court stated;
“The point for consideration is whether the matter of deduction of wages on account of absence
is incidental to the claim made by the applicant and the Authority can decide the justification or
otherwise of the deduction. The following situations may be contemplated in such matters.
(A) The employee pleads that he was present on duty, but he was marked absent, AND the
employer comes with the plea that the employee did not attend the office.
(B) The employee says that he was present at duty point but he was not entrusted the work or
that he was asked to do the work which was performable by the workman lower in rank to him,
AND the employer pleads that the employee though attended the office, did not do the work
entrusted to him.
(C) The employer makes an averment in the reply that the employee intentionally remained
absent from duty or did not perform duty entrusted to him and therefore, disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated against him.”
“In my opinion, in the situation (A) and (B) above, the Authority under the Act can decide the
controversy on the basis of the evidence - oral and documentary - produced by the parties. In
such case, the matter of justification of deduction of the wages for absence from duty shall be
incidental to the claim. However, the position would be different where the employer pleads that
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the employee for his absence from duty or
refusal to do work i.e. in situation 'C' above.”
The Hon’ble Court then started to deal with the appeals on an individual basis as well as by
grouping them as and when possible and stated the following observations:
Individually Decided Petitions;
14 | P a g e
“In the case of Rajendra Singh (Writ Petition No. 1255/1991) the reply of the Corporation was
that the applicant had not attended the office and therefore he was not entitled to the wages for
which the deduction was made. On July 26, 1990 the arguments were heard but none appeared
for the Corporation though its representative had submitted written arguments prior to that date.
It is obvious that despite giving various opportunities to the Corporation, it did not lead
evidence in rebuttal. The authority was well within its jurisdiction to decide as to whether the
applicant had attended the duty on the dates for which his wages were deducted. No fault can be
found with the authority when it held on the basis of the oral evidence produced by the applicant
that he had attended the office but work was not entrusted to him. That being so, the authority
was justified in directing the Corporation to make payment to the applicant his wages along with
compensation.”
“Same is true for Devi Singh (Writ No. 1256/1991). There was no averment in the reply of the
Corporation that for the alleged absence disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against
him. The fact remains that the Corporation failed to produce evidence in rebuttal. The only point
to be decided in the matter was whether the applicant had attended the office on the dates for
which the Corporation deducted the wages. The applicant's case was proved by the evidence and
the Corporation led no evidence. Therefore, the authority was perfectly justified in holding that
the deduction from the wages was illegal. No fault can be found in the direction given by the
authority to the Corporation to make payment of the deducted wages along with compensation.”
Petitions Decided in Groups;
“However, the situation is different in the cases of Sundari, Mansingh and Chunilal. As already
stated, in the reply it was averred that the applicants had been charge sheeted for their
remaining absent from duty. In view of the discussion made above, in these cases the authority
could not have proceeded further to determine the question of absence from duty. The
controversy in these cases cannot be called incidental to the claims made before the authority.”
“In the remaining five cases of Prabhu, Sundari, Heera, Krishna and Chhoga the Corporation
could not file reply. The first date fixed in two out of five cases was December 26, 1990 and in
the remaining three cases it was November 19, 1990. As the Corporation did not appear the
authority directed the cases to proceed ex parte. However, the documents which have been filed
15 | P a g e
along with the writ petitions indicate that in three matters applications were made by the
Corporation on November 26, 1990 i.e. within one week of the order dated November 19, 1990
that the copy of the application was not delivered to them. No orders seem to have been passed
on these applications, and the authority chose to decide the cases on March 14. 1991 ex-parte.”
The Hon’ble Court concluded by saying;
“The case for the Corporation was that its representative could not reach on the dates fixed due
to issues. It is evident that in these cases the action of the authority was over hasty and adequate
opportunities were not given to Corporation to submit its reply. In this view of the matter, I
would have remanded back the cases of these five applicants after setting aside the ex-parte
order for deciding the matter afresh. However, for the reason which I will presently show, I am
not adopting that course.”
Reason stated - “As the authority has got no jurisdiction in these matters, it is futile exercise to
send back these cases to the authority.”
“The result, therefore is that the writ petitions Nos. 1246/1991, 1255/1991 and 1256/1991 are
devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. Writ petitions No. 1253, 1254, 1257, 1576, 1577,
1578, 1579 and 1580/1991 are allowed and the orders impugned therein are hereby
quashed.”
CONCLUSION
16 | P a g e
“Time and again it has been seen that, whenever lower Judicial/Administrative authorities have
exercised their jurisdiction in cases where either they lacked the jurisdiction or they had it but
while exercising it they overdid it, the High Courts and the Supreme Court through their writ
jurisdictions have always saved the day. This judgement is yet another addition to those cases, in
the present case also it was contended that the Authority that passed the orders had no
jurisdiction in that respect and that the orders were in contravention of even the principles of
natural justice and that adequate right to be heard was not afforded to the appellants. The
Hon’ble court with all its wisdom classified the 11 applications into 3 different broad heads
based on the factual matrix of the dispute. The Hon’ble court while deciding the matter led to the
conclusion that while some of the petitions were devoid of the merit, others had substance in
them and therefore in case of 8 out of the 11 petitions, their impugned orders were quashed and
an observation was also made” stating that “The authority has got no jurisdiction in these matters
and therefore it is a futile exercise to send back these cases to the authority.”
This judgement yet again shows us exactly why according to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar the Writ
Jurisdiction acts as the “heart and soul of the Constitution” and is an integral part of our Justice
System.
17 | P a g e
