MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 14-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND CRS. 
OCTOBER 14, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 
197~Section 3---Dispute between management and Workmen-Halt in 
production-Management not paying wages-Workmen-Whether to resort to 
usual process of industrial adjudication--Exercise of power under this C 
provision:--Power of the Labour Commissioner-Scope and nature of-Quasi-
judicial power-Giving of reasons-Requirement of-Dependent upon cir-
cumstances of each case. 
Interpretation of Statutes : Internal aids--lnterpretation with the aid of 
Preamble. Statemettt of Reasons--U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of D 
Wages) Act, 197~Section 3-lnterpretation of. 
In one of th~ units of the appellant-company, there was a halt in 
production due to suspension of some workers. Later, the production 
commenced and for the interregnum between 21.12.1990 and 3.3.1991 when E 
there was no production, the management refused to pay wages to the 
workmen. The trade unions claimed that the Workmen reported for duty 
during the said period, but there was no production since in the absence 
of technicians, who were suspended, the machi~es could not be operated. 
The Additional Labour Commissioner issued a notice under S.3 of F 
the U.P. Industrial Peace(Temporary Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 calling 
upon the appellant-company to show cause as to why order for payment 
of wages to the workmen should not be made against it. After hearing the 
appellant-company, an order was passed directing recotery of Rs. 3,67,474 
from the Company for payment of wages to the workmen of the month of G 
January, 1991 only. 
The appellant-company filed a Writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the said order. The High Court having dismissed the Writ 
Petitions the appellant-company preferred the present appeal. It con· 
tended that sin .:e there was a dispute as to whether the workmen v1ere H 
281 
282 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
entitled to receive payment of wages for the period in question, the Labour 
Commissioner ought to have directed the workmen to raise an industrial 
dispute or to approach the Civil Court, and that he had no jurisdiction to 
decide the said dispute; that no speaking order was passed and that such 
an order could be passed only when there was default in payment of wage 
B bill in respect of the entire establishment and not of :i few individual 
workmen. 
On behalf of the Workmen it was contended that the power conferred 
on the Labour Commissioner was of summary nature to give speedy relief 
to the workmen who were deprived of their wages; and that the order in 
c question being administrative in nature, the authority was not bound to 
give reasons for the same • 
.. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. The U.P. Industrial Peace (Temporary Payment of Wages) 
D Act, 1978 does not supplant or substitute the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 
but supplements the said Act, in the limited area, viz., where the estab· 
lishment produces, processes, adopts or manufactures some articles; 
where there is a default in the wage-bill of the entire establishment; and 
where such wage-bill exceeds Rs. S0,000. The object of the Act is not so 
E 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. Many establishments had a tendency to delay 
the payment of wages to their workmen and ".Vere playing with the lives of 
the workmen with impunity. This r,'lturally led to.~despread disturbance 
F 
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 
'l.111
G the workmen are entitled to them. (289-G-H; 290-A-C] 
2. 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 part. He does not act as an adjudicator if 
the entitlement of workmen to the wages is disputed otherwise then "on 
H frivolous or prima facie untenable grounds

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.