ORDER
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. The petitioner, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 22nd December, 2000, copy whereof is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the Deputy Labour Commissioner has issued a certificate for recovery being Case No. 26 of 2000 under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978.
3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-employer received a notice from the aforesaid authority under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1978), which shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Act’, to the effect that the outstanding wages, which have not been paid to the employees/workmen of the establishment, are amounting to more than Rs. 60,000, therefore, the petitioner-employer was asked to show cause as to why the recovery under the provisions of the aforesaid Act for Rs. 60,819.76 may not be issued as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner-employer submitted a reply/objection to the aforesaid notice and has stated therein that nine employees, mentioned in the reply submitted by the petitioner, are absconding and out of total 22 employees, eight employees have been paid their wages and that the amount, which is now to be paid, is less than 50,000 thus the provision of the Act has incorrectly been applied because the grievance, if any, of the employees/workmen concerned can only be agitated under the appropriate forum of law, as they are not remedy less.
4. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has considered the case of the respective parties and has recorded findings that the eight employees have already been paid their wages by the employer and on account of this the total outstanding wages come to less than Rs. 50,000 and the case set up by the petitioner-employer that the record of nine employees shows that they are deliberately absconding and since they are absconding, they are not entitled for any wages, has not been considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he has also recorded finding that it is admitted case of the employees that total outstanding wages is Rs. 44,060.81. Thus, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion that the payment of Rs. 16,758.00 has been deliberately made to the eight employees, so as to reduce the outstanding wages from Rs. 60,819.76 and frustrate the proceedings before the Labour Court. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, which is relevant to decide the present controversy, is reproduced below :
“3. Recovery of wages in certain Industrial establishments as arrear of land revenue.–(1) 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 under his signature specifying the amount of wages due from the industrial establishment concerned.”
5. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act clearly demonstrates that it requires the satisfaction of the Labour Commissioner, which cannot be arrived at except after affording an opportunity to raise objection to the employer concerned on receipt of the application filed by the employees. Therefore, in this case the relevant date for exercise of power under Section 3 (1) by the Labour Commissioner is admitted that he passed an order disposing of the objection i.e., on 23rd December, 2000 and not the date on which the application is allowed. This inference is drawn in the case reported in Modi Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 536. In this view of the matter, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has committed an error, which is covered by the phrase ‘manifest error of law’, therefore, the order impugned in the present writ petition deserves to be quashed.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the present writ petition, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is quashed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.