Letters Patent Appeal No.671 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) LPA No.671 of 2009
M/s Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
(2) LPA No.672 of 2009
M/s Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
Date of Decision:28.7.2009
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the appellant.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This order shall dispose of L.P.A.Nos.671 and 672 of
2009, as both the appeals are separate but identical orders have
been passed. Facts are, however, referred from LPA No.671 of 2009.
This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is
Letters Patent Appeal No.671 of 2009 2
directed against order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the learned single
Judge of this Court in CWP No.20100 of 2008 titled M/s Haryana
Steel and Alloys Limited Versus State of Haryana and others.
The learned single Judge has upheld the order dated 30.8.2008
passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act,
1936 (for brevity “the Act”). It is appropriate to mention that the
Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on the principal ground
that the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit of the awarded
amount was not complied with as envisaged by Section 17 (1-A) of
the Act for entertainment of the appeal.
The learned single Judge has repelled the argument that
any application for making payment of pre-deposit as per
requirement of Section 17 (1-A) of the Act was maintainable as there
is no provision in the Act. Accordingly, the learned single Judge
permitted the petitioner-appellant to deposit the amount of its liability
in terms of Section 17 (1-A) of the Act within a period of two months
from the date of the order, then the Appellate Authority was to
entertain the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law.
Mr.P.K.Mutneja, learned counsel for the appellant, has
addressed numerous arguments on merits of the controversy.
According to the learned counsel, the respondent-workman did not
discharge any duty during the period from August 2007 to September
2007. He has also made submission that according to Section 22 of
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SICA
Act”), no application under the Act could have proceeded.
Letters Patent Appeal No.671 of 2009 3
After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the
considered view that the course adopted by the learned single Judge
does not warrant any interference because no plea of the appellant-
petitioner, on merits, could be entertained, until and unless the
appellate Court records an opinion on those issues. It is patent that
the appeal of the appellant-petitioner has not been heard on merit on
account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 17 (1-A) of
the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge has adopted the correct
approach by relegating the appellant-petitioner to deposit the amount
of the award within a period of two months from 25.5.2009 and then
the Appellate Authority was to entertain the appeal for decision on
merits, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the
same is dismissed. However, the period of two months granted by
the learned single Judge is extended for a further period of ten days
with effect from today.
A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual
charges.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
28.7.2009 (Jaswant Singh)
AS Judge