HOTEL AND RESTAURANT KARAMCHARI SANGH versus M/S. GULMARG HOTEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 08-06-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

\. 
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT KARAMCHARI SANGH 
A 
v. 
MIS. GULMARG HOTEL AND ORS. 
JUNE 8, 2006 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978-
Section 3-Recovery of wages in certain industrial establishments as arrears C 
of land revenue-Complaint for recovery of wages amounting to more than 
Rs. 60, 000-Subsequent payment of a part of claim by employer leaving the 
claimed amount less than Rs. 50,0001-Maintainability of the complaint-
Authority held the complaint as maintainable as at the initiation of the complaint 
the claimed amount was more than Rs. 60,000-Jn Writ Petition High Court D 
held that the date of adjudication is the determinative date for deciding 
maintainability of the complaint-Held: The determinative date for deciding 
maintainability of the complaint, is the date on which the claim is lodged-
Otherwise, the very purpose of the Act i.e. to give help to the workers, would 
be defeated. 
E 
Appellant filed a complaint under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace 
(Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 for recovery of more than Rs. 60,000 
towards wages. Respondent No. 1 objected to the same on the ground that 
the authority had no jurisdiction to entertain_ the complaint, as a part of 
the amount claimed had been paid subsequently and the amount payable 
was less than Rs. 50,000/-. The authority held that at the time of initiation F 
of the proceedings, the amount was admittedly more than Rs.50,000; that 
merely because a part of the amount claimed had been paid subsequently, 
that cannot affect the jurisdiction of the concerned authority to issue a 
certificate of recovery. Respondent-employer filed a writ petition wherein 
it was held by High Court that the proceedings were not maintainable as G 
at the time of adjudication, the amount in default did not exceed Rs. 
50,000/-. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
17 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURf REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of 
Wages) Act, 1978 is a beneficial one intended to give help to the workers 
who are not being paid their wages. The Assistant Labour Commissioner 
was justified in taking the view that the determinative date for deciding 
maintainability of the complaint under the Act, is the date on which the 
B claim is lodged. Otherwise, the very purpose of the enactment would be 
defeated. 123-B; 22-Fl 
Modi Industries Ltd. v. State uf UP. and Ors., fl994J I SCC 159, 
distinguished. 
2. The Act does not supplant or substitute the Payment of Wages 
C Act, 1936, but supplements the said Act, in the limited area, viz., where 
the establishment, (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 is not so much to secure payment of wages to individual 
D 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 workforce as a whole. [21-B-DJ 
3. Under the Act, the Labour Commissioner acts to assist the 
workmen to recover their wages which are admittedly due to them but 
E 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 is under dispute which involves investigation of the questions 
of fact and/or law, it is not the function of the Labour Commissioner to 
F adjudicate the same. In sucllI cases, he has to refer the parties to the 
appropriate forum. The 1:xercise of the powers by the Labour 
Commissioner does not prevent either party from approaching the regular 
forum for the redressal of its grievance. (21-G-H; 22-A-BI 
State of Ullar Pradesh v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd, AIR (1961) SC 
G 420, relied on. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5371 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2004 of the High Court of 
Allahabad in W.P. No. 375 (MIS) of2001. 
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT KARAMCHARI SANGH v. GULMARG HOTEL [PASA YAT, J.] J 9 
Anuvrat Shanna, Sanjay Kumar Singh and M.P. Shorawala for the A 
Appellant. 
S. Wasim A. Qadri and Pradeep Misra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.