Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 249 (JK)

Ashwani Suri v. State

2016-05-06

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2016
ORDER : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Kathua whereby the petitioner herein had been ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 63,000/- on account of delayed wages to the claimant. Subsequently, during the execution proceedings, an objection was taken by the petitioner that the order was in-executable inasmuch he was never a partner of the firm under which the claimant was claiming to have been engaged. The Executing Court of Sub Judge Kathua, however, vide order dated 23.9.2015 rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that in execution proceedings, the validity of the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act could not be gone into and accordingly directed the respondent-petitioner (herein) to deposit the awarded amount. 2. The present petition has been filed, challenging both these orders dated 23rd of September, 2015 passed by the Executing Court as also the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 3. The main ground under which the present petition has been filed is that the order impugned was passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua which was the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not at all a partner of the firm under which the claimant was claiming to have been engaged. 4. A Partnership Deed of M/s. R.D. Bhasin has been placed on record to show that the petitioner-Ashwani Suri was not a partner and therefore, not liable to make any payment on account of delayed wages. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Perusal of the order impugned passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua) would show that the petitioner did appear in person before the said authority but did not file any objections and thereafter, even failed to attend the Court. He was accordingly set ex-parte. If at all the petitioned was not liable to make any payment to the claimant, such an objection could have been raised by him before the said authority. 7. He was accordingly set ex-parte. If at all the petitioned was not liable to make any payment to the claimant, such an objection could have been raised by him before the said authority. 7. The issue as to whether the petitioner was or was not liable to make any payment involves a disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into at this stage in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner did have an opportunity to place his case before the said authority, which he chose not to avail. 8. Based on the facts before the authority, the order impugned has been passed, holding the petitioner to be liable to make payment to the claimant. There does not appear to be any lack of jurisdiction in passing the order impugned. Simply because the order impugned holds the petitioner liable to make the payment does not convert the order into an order without jurisdiction. 9. It is settled law that while deciding matters in writ jurisdiction, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of an executive authority. It is not the decision but the process of arriving at a conclusion, which is tested by the Courts. Reference in this regard can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Heinz India Private Limited and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 443 : 2012 AIR SCW 2059. 10. What was held by the Apex Court in paragraph 78 of the judgment (Para 57 of AIR SCW) (supra) is as under: "78. In the light of the legal position stated in the earlier part of this order, it is neither feasible for us to embark upon an exercise of re-appreciating the entire material or to substitute our own findings for those recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Director/Mandi Parishad. So long as the findings recorded by the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Parishad are not irrational or perverse, and so long as the view taken by them is a reasonably possible view, this Court would not interfere." Having considered the entire issue, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order dated 23rd of September, 2015 passed by the Executing Court. The petition is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected applications. Petition Dismissed.