A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 28. 3. 1979 (Annex. 9) given by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has decreed the claim for payment of wages of the non-petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Ayub and decreed the claim to the extent of Rs. 12, 403. 20.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner firm is a registered partnership firm having its Head Office at Jodhpur and Branch Office at Bhadwasi District Nagaur. THE petitioner firm consists of the following partners:- 1. Shri Abdul Hakim 2. Shri Inayatullah 3. Shri Hamiddullah 4. Shri Abdul Wahid. THE present firm is run by these partners w. e. f. 1. 1. 1976. This partnership firm has been registered with the Registrar of Firms, Rajasthan, Jaipur. THE non-petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Ayub was an ex-employee of M/s. Mohammed & Sons, Bhadwasi. In the year 1971. he was transferred from Bhadwasi to Jodhpur Office. He did not resume his duties at Jodhpur office, therefore, his services were terminated. THE non-petitioner No. 2 challenged his termination before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Ajmer but without any success. He was not given any appointment by the petitioner firm. THE non-petitioner No. 2 ceased to be the employee of the petitioner firm since 1971. Mohd. Ayub non-petitioner No. 2 is son-in-law of Shri Yusuf, non-petitioner No. 3. Non-petitioner No. 3 Yusuf stood retired from the petitioner firm in the year 1975 and he was not inducted as a new partner when the new partnership firm was constituted. Non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 being son-in-law and father-in-law respectively joined hands. An application was filed under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the court of non-petitioner No. 1 at Bikaner by non-petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Ayub. THE notice of the claim petition was got served on Yusuf, father-in-law showing him as a partner of the petitioner firm M/s. Mohammed & Sons, though in the newly constituted firm Yusuf was not a partner. A confessional statement was filed by Shri Yusuf on behalf of the firm admitting the claim. On account of this confessional statement the claim of non-petitioner No. 2 was decreed. THE claim of non-petitioner No. 2 was allowed by the order dated 28. 3. 1979 and this order was sought to be executed by moving the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur issued a direction to execute the order dated 28. 3. 1979 by the order dated 24. 5. 1979 (Ex. 12 ). In these circumstances, the petitioner firm approached this Court by filing the present writ petition submitting that the whole action was collusive and the decree has been passed against the firm without the firm being properly served through its partners. Thus, the present award given by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is without jurisdiction and likewise the further direction issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. A return has been filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 contesting the contention of petitioner firm. We need not to go into the other earlier history of the case mentioned by the non-petitioner by making reference to various orders passed by this Court in the present litigation as well as in the litigation between Yusuf a partner of the petitioner firm and M/s. Mohd. & Sons. The sum total of the matter is that it is the admitted position that Yusuf non-petitioner No. 3 is father-in-law of non-petitioner No. 2 Mohd. Ayub. It is also an admitted fact that the award has been given by the Authority under the Act by treating Yusuf as one of the partners of M/s. Mohd. & Sons and, therefore, the service was found to be sufficient. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that in the circumstances like the present one where relation of Yusuf who was partner in the earlier firm and the present firm is not cordial and they have already resorted to litigation so much so a suit was filed for rendition of accounts and there are serious disputes going on whether Yusuf is a partner of M/s. Mohd. & Sons or not. It would have been fair on he part of Mohd. Yusuf to bring all the facts about the litigation between him and the present constitution of the firm to the notice of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. But the way in which the whole thing has proceeded gives an impression of plain and simple collusion between the father-in-law and son-in-law for obtaining the award from the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act against the firm. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the Authority under the Act by not getting the firm M/s. Mohd. & Sons properly served the whole award stands vitiated on account of breach of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now Shri Abdul Wahid has been appointed as Receiver by the Court and he is working as the Receiver of the Court for managing the affairs of the petitioner firm. Therefore, we think it just and proper to set aside the award and further action initiated on the award by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Order Annex. 12 and remand this case back to the Authority under the Act in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner firm to place all the facts before the Authority so as to enable the Authority to determine all the issues in just and proper manner. Since the Receiver is working, therefore, we direct that the Receiver Shri Abdul Wahid may be impleaded as a party in the claim petition before the Authority under the Act. Before parting with the case, we may also mention that the petitioner has referred a number of issues and cases to substantiate his contention but since we are remanding the case back to the authority under the Act it would not be necessary for us to refer all of them here. In the result, we allow this writ petition, set aside the award dated 28. 3. 1979 (Annex. 9) and direction issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 24. 5. 1979 (Annex. 12) and remand the case back to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to hear both the parties i. e. claimant and other non-claimants along with Shri Abdul Wahid, Receiver and then decide the matter afresh. If any party wants to lead any evidence then same may also be permitted to do so. The Authority should dispose of the matter within a period of three months from today. No Costs. . ;