Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 795 (BOM)

Akola Zillah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Sahakari Sansthanacha Sangh Ltd. v. Sheshrao Ramchandra Mhasaye

2011-07-07

SAVANT R.M.

body2011
JUDGMENT : Savant R.M., J. 1. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 28/1/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Akola, who is the Appellate Authority, in so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, by which order the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 21/2006 came to be dismissed and the order passed by the Controlling Authority came to be confirmed. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition can be stated thus. The respondents herein were working with the petitioner Society, which is a Federal Society of the Milk Societies in Akola District. The respondent No. 1 was working as a Senior Clerk and the respondent No. 2 was working as a Milk Tester-cum-Senior Clerk. According to the petitioner, the remuneration of the said respondents was Rs. 840/p.m. and Rs. 960/p.m. respectively. The respondents filed a common application u/s 15(2)(3) read with section 17(A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") before the Authority constituted under the said Act claiming difference in wages. The said application was numbered as P.W.A. Case No. 3/ 1989. Since there was some delay in filing the said application, the respondents also filed an application for condonation of delay, which was granted by the said Authority. 4. It appears that in the said proceedings, Pursis was filed by the parties that they did not desire to lead oral evidence and would be relying upon the documents. The Authority by its order dated 16th January, 2006 partly allowed the said application, since there was no dispute as regards the leave wages for the period from 1986 to 1989, the Authority allowed the claim on the said count. In so far as the bonus claim for the period from 1983-84 to 1986-87 is concerned, the same was rejected by the Authority. The Authority also held that the respondents would be entitled to the 13 months wages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ for the period from 1988 to 31st January, 1989 and leave wages for Rs. 3,000/. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 16th January, 2006 passed by the Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court, Akola. The Authority also held that the respondents would be entitled to the 13 months wages at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ for the period from 1988 to 31st January, 1989 and leave wages for Rs. 3,000/. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 16th January, 2006 passed by the Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court, Akola. The said appeal came to be registered as Appeal No. 21/2006 The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has inter alia observed that the finding of the Authority that the petitioner has not paid the wages for 13 months period on the basis of the evidence on record could not be faulted with. In so far as the leave wages are concerned, since it was an admitted position that the same was due to the respondents, the Appellate Court did not deem it fit to interfere with the order passed by the Authority. However, in view of the default committed by the petitioner in payment of the said wages, the Authority imposed penalty at the rate of 10 times, the amount which was due from the petitioner. 6. In so far as the filing and prosecution of the appeal before the Appellate Court is concerned, it is mandated by section 29 of the said Act that the appellant has to deposit the amount ordered by the Authority and obtain a certificate from the Authority, which has to be filed along with the appeal. It seems that at an interim stage the matter had come up to this Court as regards the predeposit to be made by the petitioner and this Court had extended the time to make the predeposit. It appears that the petitioner did not make the predeposit also in terms of the directions of this Court, but has ultimately made the predeposit of an amount of Rs. 3,54,000/, the Appellate Court accepted the justification given by the petitioner for non deposit and there by held that the appeal is maintainable. 7. In so far as the merits of the two orders are concerned, it is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the documents, which were not proved, were relied upon by the Authority as well as the Appellate Court in deciding against the petitioner. 7. In so far as the merits of the two orders are concerned, it is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the documents, which were not proved, were relied upon by the Authority as well as the Appellate Court in deciding against the petitioner. In so far as the said aspect is concerned, the said document formed part of the record of the Collector which was sent by the petitioner itself to the Collector on enquiries being made by the Collector. Therefore, in my view, the said objection of the petitioner is without any merits. Both the authorities i.e., the Authority as well as the Appellate Court have gone into the material on record and have arrived at the said finding that the petitioner has committed a default in payment of wages. In so far as the leave wages are concerned, the petitioner did not dispute the same and, therefore, the same was granted. In my view, the impugned orders i.e., the order passed by the Authority and the order passed in appeal by the Appellate Court, in so far as the findings recorded therein cannot be faulted with. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made a grievance as regards the penalty imposed. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioner was facing financial difficulties hence there was a default in payment of the wages. In my view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty at ten times the amount appears to be harsh and the same requires to be reduced. Hence, the penalty which is imposed on the petitioner at ten times is reduced to five times the amount due. The respondents would be entitled to withdraw the said amount out of the amount i.e., deposited by the petitioner in the District Court, Akola. The petitioner would thereafter be entitled to withdraw the balance that would be remaining after the amount so withdrawn by the respondents. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The parties to bear their respective costs.