M.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer challenges an order dated June 6, 1989 made by the Competent Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act directing the employer petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,032/towards wages for the period February 16, 1984 to February 15, 1985 to the wife and legal representative of the deceased employee Paltu along with a penalty of Rs. 70,224/- and an order dated February 14, 1994 passed by the IX Addl. District Judge, Kanpur dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the first mentioned order.
(2.) The deceased Paltu was employed in the Muir Mills owned by the National Textile Corporation U.P. Ltd. He moved an application dated February 27, 1985 before the Competent Authority claiming that he was employed on the post of a reeler in the reeling department and that he has been going for duty regularly in the reeling department but he has been turned back every day by the employer w.e.f. December 3, 1983 without providing any work. It was claimed that he had been made permanent reeler by the Labour Court-V, Kanpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 47 of 1981 by a decision dated November 26, 1983. It was alleged that inspite of several letters sent to the employer and the officials of the Labour Department the applicant was given no work. The application was opposed by the employer claiming that no wages had been deducted and, therefore, the application under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. Their case was that the workman himself was absenting from duty from December 2, 1983. Several letters were posted to him at his local home address but all the letters have been returned to the mills undelivered. He was also informed through a notice published in Dainik Jagran dated March 9, 1985 to report for duty but all these efforts of the employer went in vain. It was also asserted that since the workman had not worked, he was not entitled to any wages on the principal of no work no pay. According to the employer the workman was employed as a substitute in the carding department and was declared permanent w.e.f. December 16, 1983 vide order dated December 7, 1983 but he has been absenting from duty w.e.f. December 2, 1983. The Competent Authority held that the workman has been reporting for duty in the reeling department in terms of the award of the Labour Court dated November 24, 1983 and the employer has not taken any work from him and that the employer has been treating him as a workman in the carding department, while according to the award he should have been confirmed in the reeling department. On this finding the Competent Authority held that the workman was entitled to wages. The appellate Court has upheld this finding and has dismissed the employer's appeal. These two orders are challenged by the employer in the present writ petition.
(3.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. I have heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.;