1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned recovery certificate, dated March 25, 1987, Annexure 9, to the writ petition issued under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. I have heared learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. Fifty per cent share of the firm is owned by Hemant Narain Narhar Gokhale and his mother Smt. Vineeta Gokhale, while the remaining 50 per cent is owned by Sri Dilip Ranadey and his father M.B Ranadey. In the factory of the petitioner firm 86 workers were employed? Dilip Ranadey was appointed as occupier of the said factory and he was also Factory Manager. It is alleged in Para. 5 of the petition that without knowledge of the other partners Dilip Ranadey for some ulterior motive is said to have displayed a notice, dated March 1, 1987, stating that the factory would be closed from March 1, 1987. True copy of the said notice is Annexure 1 to the petition. In Para. 6 of the petition it is alleged that on March 2, 1987, the Secretary of Engineering Shramik Panchayat, Kanpur, who is in league with the said partner, Dilip Ranadey, filed an application before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, stating that the factory has been closed from March 1, 1987, without taking permission and hence they may be given compensation. It is alleged that the conspiracy of the partner was to sell the factory with the help of the union.
3. It is alleged that some conciliation proceedings were held before the Conciliation Officer, Kanpur. True copy of the proceeding, dated March 1, 1987, is Annexure 5. It is alleged in Para. 15 of the writ petition that wages up to the month of February 1987 were paid to the workers. In Para, 16 it is alleged that on March 13, 1987, an application was filed by respondent 3 that the retrenchment compensation and earned leave was due to the workmen which may be recovered under the said Act. Along with this application a chart was also filed vide, Annexure 6, to the writ petition.
4. It is alleged in Para. 18 of the writ petition that no notice was given to the petitioner though from the proceedings it appears that the Additional Labour Commissioner issued a notice to the occupier Sri Ranadey for hearing of the case and the case was adjourned for March 25, 1987. It is alleged in Para. 18 that no notice was sent to the petitioner and hence he could not appear. The Additional Labour Commissioner issued recovery certificate vide, Annexures 8 and 9. Hence this petition.
5. The case of the petitioner was that in fact the notice of closure was unauthorised and had been withdrawn vide Paras. 25 and 28 of the writ petition. The petitioner also applied to the Collector, Kanpur, for cancelling the recovery alleging that the factory had not been closed, but nothing was done.
6. In Modi Industries, Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1994 (1) L.L.N 33], it has been observed by the Supreme Court that where the liability to pay wages is in dispute the matter has to be referred to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication, and recovery cannot be issued under S. 3 of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to prevent industrial unrest and not so much to secure payment of wages. In the present case there was a serious dispute as to whether there was a closure or not, and hence no recovery could have been issued under the said Act. Moreover it can be noted that S. 2(e) of the said Act states that the word “wages” shall have the same meaning as in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In the Payment of Wages Act the word “wages” has been defined as follows in S. 2(vi).
“‘wages’ means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes—
(a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court;
(b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work OT holidays or any leave period,
(c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name);
(d) any sum which by reason of termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made;
(e) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme for the time being in force;
But does not include …”
7. The claim of the workmen is not really regarding wages but for closure compensation which is not wages as defined in the Payment of Wages Act. It may be noted that wages as defined in the Payment of Wages Act means the remuneration payable to a person employed. The claim of the workers is that the factory has been closed from March 1, 1987, and consequently their service came to an end on that date. Hence even according to their own claim they are no longer employed. Hence closure compensation cannot be regarded as wages. Hence also the application was not maintainable under the said Act.
8. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned recovery certificate, dated March 25, 1987, is quashed. No order as to costs.