Timely payment of wages important: Supreme Court

New Delhi, June 11: The Supreme Court has held that timely payment of wages to the workers is a must to maintain peace and tranquility in an industry and an employer cannot deliberately delay and deny the payment of salaries to the employees.

The ruling came on a petition filed by Hotel and Restaurant Karamchari Sangh against Gulmarg Hotel in Lucknow challenging Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the Hotel management against the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner of Lucknow region issuing a certificate for the recovery of Rs.60,810 from the hotel as arrears of wages to its employees. The certificate was issued under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act 1978, (UPIPA).

A bench comprising Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr Justice C K Thakker vide judgment dated June 8 restored the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and quashed the impugned High Court order.

The UPIPA was brought by the state government to ensure timely payment of wages to employees to maintain peace in bigger industrial establishments, is applicable only to the establishments which produce, process, adopt or manufacture some articles and the amount of arrears of wages must be above Rs. 50,000.

The Labour Commissioner issued show cause notice to the respondent no. 1 on October 19, 2000 and the reply was filed by the hotel on December 14 the same year contending that the wage bill was below Rs.50,000 as out of 22 employees eight had been paid their wages and nine employees were absconding.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the contention of the hotel on the grounds that the wage bill was above Rs. 50,000 on October 19,2000, the date of institution of the claim and hence the arrears were recoverable as land revenue arrears. The High Court set aside the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

The Supreme Court held that the inquiry by the Labour Commissioner contemplated under section 3 of the Act is of a very limited nature The establishment has made default in timely payment of wages to its workmen as a whole when there is no dispute that the workers are entitled to the same.

The state of UP supported the stand taken by the appellant while Gulmarg Hotel respondent no.1 did not appear in the apex court.

The apex court held: '' The Assistant Labour Commissioner was justified in taking the view that the determinative date is the date on which the claim was lodged. Otherwise the very purpose of the enactment would be defeated. Otherwise to overcome action contemplated under section 3(1) of the Act, that is, issuance of certificate for recovery by making a part payment to see that the amount comes below Rs. 50,000, a crafty and unscrupluous employer can defeat the legislative intent.''

UNI