JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the order dated 30.3.2001 by which a recovery certificate has been issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,530/- plus ten percent recovery charges, i.e. total amount of Rs. 29183/- has been challenged. This Courtby means of an interim order dated 11.5.2001 ordered that in case the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with respondent No. 1 within two weeks, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed, therefore, the impugned recovery proceedings have remained in abeyance during pendency of the writ petition. 2. The contention of Sri Nigam is that the Wage Bill in respect of which, the petitioner was allegedly in default did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- as is evident from the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate itself, therefore, the controversy was beyond the purview of the aforesaid Act of 1978 and the recovery certificate is without jurisdiction. In this regard he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Modi Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1994 SC 536 . The relevant extract of the said judgment relied upon by Sri Nigam is being quoted hereinbelow: “3..........................................Section 2(a) of the Act defines “industrial establishment” to mean “any factory, workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, processed, adopted or manufactured with a view to their use, transport or sale”. “Wage-bill” is defined by Section 2(d) to mean “the total amount of wages payable by an industrial establishment to its workmen”. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 then states that where the Labour Commissioner is “satisfied” that the occupier of an industrial establishment is in default of payment of wages and that the “wage-bill” in respect of which such occupier is in default “exceeds fifty thousand rupees”, he may, without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 5 and 6, forward to the Collector, a certificate ... specifying the amount of wages due from the industrial establishment concerned. specifying the amount of wages due from the industrial establishment concerned. Sub-section (2) of that section states that upon receipt of “the certificate” referred to in sub-section (1), the Collector shall proceed to realise from the industrial establishment, the amount specified therein, besides recovery charges at the rate of ten per cent, as if such amount was an arrear of land revenue. Sub-section (3) of that section states that the amount so realised shall be placed at the disposal of the Labour Commissioner and he shall disburse the same among the workmen entitled thereto. Sub-section (4) states that when the amount so realised falls short of the wage-bill in respect of which there has been a default, the Labour Commissioner may arrange for disbursement of such proportion or respective proportions of the wages due to “various categories of workmen”, as he may think fit. Sub-section (5) then states that the liability of the occupier towards each workman in respect of payment of wages shall to the extent of the amount paid to such workman, stand discharged. Section 4 specifies the powers of the Labour Commissioner when he entertains the complaint of the default of payment of the wage-bill. It states that for the purposes of ascertaining the “wage-bill” of an establishment in respect of which default has been committed, the Labour Commissioner shall have all the powers of a civil Courtwhile trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of enforcing the attendance of witnesses, examining them on oath and compelling production of documents, and shall be deemed to be a civil Courtfor the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 5 prescribes penalty. It states that no occupier of an industrial establishment shall at any time be in default of a wage-bill exceeding Rs 1 lakh, and every occupier who is so in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The Court is given power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in writing. Section 6 provides, for punishment of persons when the offence is by the company, which includes firms and association of individuals. The Court is given power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in writing. Section 6 provides, for punishment of persons when the offence is by the company, which includes firms and association of individuals. It will thus be clear from the preamble, the statement of objects and reasons and the provisions of the Act that, firstly, the Act has been placed on the statute book to ensure timely payment of wages by the bigger establishments, the incidence of disturbance of industrial peace being greater in such establishments on account of the default in payment of wages. Secondly, the Act deals with defaults in payment of the wage-bill of all the workmen in the establishment. It is not meant to provide a remedy for the default in payment of wages of individual workmen. That can be taken care of by the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which provisions are found inadequate to ensure timely payment of wages of the whole complement of workmen in an establishment. Thirdly, it is not in respect of the default in payment of every wage-bill but only of a wage-bill exceeding Rs 50,000 that the Labour Commissioner can be approached under the Act for redressal of the grievance. Fourthly, the Act is not applicable to all establishments but only those establishments which produce, process, adopt or manufacture some articles. It will, therefore, be evident that the Act does not supplant or substitute the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 but supplements the said Act, in the limited area, viz., where the establishment, as stated above, (i) produces, processes, adopts or manufactures some articles, (ii) where there is a default in the wage-bill of the entire such establishment and (iii)where such wage-bill exceeds Rs 50,000. The object of the Act as stated above is not so much to secure payment of wages to individual workmen but to prevent industrial unrest and disturbance of industrial peace on account of the default on the part of the establishment in making payment of wages to their work force as a whole. It appears that many establishments had a tendency to delay the payment of wages to their workmen and were playing with the lives of the workmen with impunity. This naturally led to a widespread disturbance of industrial peace in the State. It appears that many establishments had a tendency to delay the payment of wages to their workmen and were playing with the lives of the workmen with impunity. This naturally led to a widespread disturbance of industrial peace in the State. Hence the legislature felt the need for enacting the present statute. This being the case, the inquiry by the Labour Commissioner contemplated under Section 3 of the Act is of a very limited nature, viz., whether the establishment has made a default in timely payment of wages to its workmen as a whole when there is no dispute that the workmen are entitled to them. The inquiry under Section 3 being thus limited in its scope, the Labour Commissioner’s powers extend only to finding out whether the workmen who have put in the work were paid their wages as per the terms of their employment and within the time stipulated by such terms. If the Labour Commissioner is satisfied that the workmen, though they have worked and are, therefore, entitled to their wages, are not paid the same within time, he has further to satisfy himself that the arrears of wages so due exceed Rs. 50,000. It is only if he is satisfied on both counts that he can issue the certificate in question. Under the Act, the Labour Commissioner acts to assist the workmen to recover their wages which are admittedly due to them but are withheld for no fault on their behalf. He does not act as an adjudicator if the entitlement of the workmen to the wages is disputed otherwise than on frivolous or prima facie untenable grounds. When the liability to pay the wages, as in the present case, is under dispute which involves investigation of the questions of fact and/or law, it is not the function of the Labour Commissioner to adjudicate the same. In such cases, he has to refer the parties to the appropriate forum.” 3. He has also placed reliance upon a pronouncement of this Courtreported in M/s. Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Ind. Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2013 (3) ESC 1207 (All). In such cases, he has to refer the parties to the appropriate forum.” 3. He has also placed reliance upon a pronouncement of this Courtreported in M/s. Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Ind. Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2013 (3) ESC 1207 (All). Paragraphs 8, 9 & 10 of the said judgment relied upon by him are being quoted hereinbelow: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the statements of Objects and Reasons given under the Act of 1978 indicates that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act was found to be inadequate to ensure timely payment of wages and that the incidence of disturbance of industrial peace was greater in establishment and, therefore, it was considered necessary to provide that if the wage bill in default exceeded Rs. 50,000/-, the amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. This became essential because it was found that there was a tendency of the employers to keep large amount of wages in arrears. The Supreme Court analysed the provisions of the Act of 1978 in Modi Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 1994 SCC (L & S) 286, in which the Supreme Court held : “8. The inquiry under Section 3 being thus limited in its scope, the Labour Commissioner’s powers extend only to finding out whether the workmen who have put in the work were paid their wages as per the terms of their employment and within the time stipulated by such terms. If the Labour Commissioner is satisfied that the workmen, though they have worked and are, therefore, entitled to their wages, are not paid the same within time, he has further to satisfy himself that the arrears of wages so due exceed Rs. 50,000/-. It is only if he is satisfied on both counts that he can issue the certificate in question. Under the Act, the Labour Commissioner acts to assist the workmen to recover their wages which are admittedly due to them but are withheld for no fault on their behalf. He does not act as an adjudicator if the entitlement of the workmen to the wages is disputed otherwise than on frivolous or prima facie untenable grounds. Under the Act, the Labour Commissioner acts to assist the workmen to recover their wages which are admittedly due to them but are withheld for no fault on their behalf. He does not act as an adjudicator if the entitlement of the workmen to the wages is disputed otherwise than on frivolous or prima facie untenable grounds. When the liability to pay the wages, as in the present case, is under dispute which involves investigation of the questions of fact and/or law, it is not the function of the Labour Commissioner to adjudicate the same. In such cases, he has to refer the parties to the appropriate forum.” The Supreme Court found that the inquiry under the Act was limited only to find out whether the workman had earned their wages as per the terms of their employment or not and if the authority was satisfied that the workers had worked and were entitled to their wages and if the authority further found that the arrears of wages exceeded Rs. 50,000/-, in that case he was obligated to issue a recovery certificate. The Supreme Court held that the authority was required to act as the facilitator and not as an adjudicator, namely, that if the claim of the workers was disputed, the authority could not adjudicate upon the dispute unless frivolous or prima facie untenable grounds were taken by the employers. The Supreme Court further observed that where the dispute involved investigation of questions of fact and of law, it was not the function of the authority to adjudicate the same and, in such matters, the parties were required to approach the appropriate forum. The Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. (supra) clearly indicates that the claim of the workers as a whole could only be filed and that claim of individual workers was not sustainable under the Act. In the light of the aforesaid, the claim of the workers in question against the principal employer was not maintainable, though it was maintainable against the contractor. The Court further finds that the question of applicability of the Minimum Wages Act vis-a-vis the notification issued therein was never an issue, which was not raised by the workers in their claim application. Their only grievance was that their wages for the month of April and May, 2010 was not disbursed by the contractor.” 4. The Court further finds that the question of applicability of the Minimum Wages Act vis-a-vis the notification issued therein was never an issue, which was not raised by the workers in their claim application. Their only grievance was that their wages for the month of April and May, 2010 was not disbursed by the contractor.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and perused the impugned recovery certificate dated 30.3.2001 in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements, I am of the considered view that the petitioner being in default of Wage Bill not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-, the provisions of Section 3 were not attracted. Impugned certificate is without jurisdiction. The reference in the recovery certificate to the fact that the amount in default is Rs. 26530/- but the Wage Bill is Rs. 50000/- appears to be under a misconception about the application of the Act of 1978. If the total wage-bill is Rs. 50,000/- and default is of only Rs. 26530/- then it is not a default in the payment of wage-bill of all the workmen in the establishment, thus, outside the purview of Act, 1978. If the wage-bill of workmen as a whole is only Rs. 26530/- and is in default, then also, it is less than Rs. 50000/- as such, out of the purview of the said Act. The Impugned order is quashed. The amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim order dated 11.5.2001 shall be refunded to the petitioner. It shall, however, be open for the workmen to pursue the remedy available to them under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Subject to above, the writ petition is allowed. —————