Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 576 (MP)

Sabir and Brothers v. Rajesh Sen

2015-05-12

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the contractor challenging the order of the Labour Court dated 29.10.2013 as also order of the Industrial Court dated 28.11.2014 passed under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short Act). 3. In brief respondent No.1/employee had filed an application under section 15(2) of the Act claiming arrears of wages in which Labour Court after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence had passed the order dated 24th November 2012 directing the petitioner and respondent No.2 to pay the arrears of wages of Rs.27,300/- to the employee for the period 5.1.2011 to 5.6.2011. An application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner and the Labour Court by order dated 29.10.2013 had rejected the said application on reaching to the conclusion that petitioner, inspite of service of notice, had failed to appear and application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner and the Labour Court by order dated 29.10.2013 had rejected the said application on reaching to the conclusion that petitioner, inspite of service of notice, had failed to appear and application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC was filed belatedly. Against the order of Labour Court petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court under section 17 of Act and by the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 Industrial Court has rejected the appeal on the ground that petitioner had not deposited the requisite amount in terms of section 17(1A) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised an issue that appeal was maintainable even without compliance of provision of section 17(1A) of Act. 5. section 17 of the Act provides for remedy of appeal and section 17(1A) prescribes the mandatory condition of filing the certificate by the authority in respect of deposit of the amount in terms of the order under appeal. section 17(1A) of the Act reads as under :- “[17(1A) No appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (1)] shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against.]” 6. section 17(1A) of the Act reads as under :- “[17(1A) No appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (1)] shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against.]” 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that pre-condition of deposit the amount and filing the certificate of the authority along with the memorandum of appeal disclosing that the amount has been deposited is a mandatory condition, without there being any power to relax or waive the requirement of pre-deposit. The unqualified condition to deposit the amount before filing the appeal has been incorporated by the legislature considering the beneficial object of legislation and to protect the interest of workmen. The provision in clear terms indicates that the appeal would not be maintainable unless such a certificate is filed. 7. Similar provision is contained in third proviso to section 30(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act and considering it Full Bench of this Court in the matter of New India Assurances Co. Ltd. v. Savita Sen and others, reported in 2004(2) MPLJ 445 has held that it is necessary to file certificate of deposit of amount of compensation from the Commissioner along with the memorandum of appeal, without which the appeal would not be maintainable. 8. Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Khemkaran s/o Tarachand Sanodiya v. Union of India and others, reported in 2005(2) Vibha 7= 2005(3) MPLJ 45 , while considering the similar issue has held that the provisions for appeal in enactments like Workmen’s Compensation Act, Payment of Wages Act and payment of Gratuity Act contain an absolute condition relating to deposit without any power to relax and these Acts are beneficial legislations intended to protect the interests of the workmen/employees, therefore, legislature has consciously imposed on absolute condition which is neither discriminatory or arbitrary. 9. In view of the aforesaid position in law, no error has been committed by the Industrial Court in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable on the ground of not complying with the provisions of section 17(1A) of the Act. The order passed by the Industrial Court does not suffer from any illegality; therefore, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.