Whether to issue notices arbitrarily is not reflecting tyranny and arbitrariness in quasi-judicial work ipso facto? Sudarshan Maurya

 Sudarshan Maurya submitted representation against arbitrary notice issued by assistant labour commissioner by blatantly misusing his post

संदर्भ संख्या : 40019922003323 , दिनांक - 18 Feb 2022 तक की स्थिति

आवेदनकर्ता का विवरण :

शिकायत संख्या:-40019922003323

आवेदक का नाम-Sudarshan Mauryaविषय-In the court of Assistant Labour Commissioner District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh Payment of Wages Act, 1936 Case number-P.W./01/2022 Prayer-Notice issued through letter number- 78-80 dated 27-01-2022 against Sudarshan Maurya S/O Brijlal Maurya and Sandeep Maurya S/O Brijlal Maurya is ultra vires to Payment of Wages Act, 1936 therefore liable to be quashed because based on the concealed and false facts of the case. More details are attached to this representation. Object of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 The Payment of Wages Act regulates the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in industry and its importance cannot be under-estimated. The Act guarantees payment of wages on time and without any deductions except those authorised under the Act. The Act provides for the responsibility for payment of wages, fixation of wage period, time and mode of payment of wages, permissible deduction as also casts upon the employer a duty to seek the approval of the Government for the acts and permission for which fines may be imposed by him and also sealing of the fines, and also for a machinery to hear and decide complaints regarding the deduction from wages or in delay in payment of wages, penalty for malicious and vexatious claims. The Act does not apply to persons whose wage is Rs. 24,000/- or more per month. The Act also provides to the effect that a worker cannot contract out of any right conferred upon him under the Act. This implies that Payment of Wages Act, 1936 deals with the dispute between employer and employees but not between a contractor and a common man who had given contract to construct house to contractor Yakoob Ansari S/O Siddik Mia who is plaintiff number 1 in the aforementioned plaint. Yakoob Ali Ansari S/O Siddik Mia itself accepted in the complaint dated 07 June 2021 that he used to take contracts of the construction of houses. This implies that he is a contractor and others i.e. from plaintiff number 3 to 6 are the workers employed by contractor Yakoob Ali Ansari S/O Siddik Mia. We notice receivers Sudarshan Maurya S/O Brijlal Maurya and Sandeep Maurya S/O Brijlal Maurya do not know plaintiff number 3 to 6. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of annexure 1. Sudarshan Maurya S/O Brijlal Maurya is the defendant 1 served the notice to Yakoob Ali Ansari S/O Mohammad Siddik Mia and his son Farook Ansari S/O Yakoob Ansari to pay detriment occurred to defendant Rs.803885.00 because of the dereliction of the contractor. Aforementioned still not compensated the loss but trying to deviate from real issue through aforementioned notice. Sir that executive officer municipality Mirzapur city submitted aforementioned report under his sign on 09-09-2021 bearing letter number 210 before in-charge, mandi samiti , Kotwali Katra, District-Mirzapur. No action has been taken by police still and they suggested defendant to seek remedy under civil procedure. When police had not to take any action in the matter then why they troubled city engineer and executive officer Municipality Mirzapur or police expected from engineers that they will also speak the language of wrongdoer contractors like police. Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as he is not labour but actually employer caused damages to the defendants because of his dereliction quite obvious from engineers reports as mentioned. Undoubtedly we will accept your conciliatory steps if damages may be compensated by the contractor

विभाग -श्रम विभागशिकायत श्रेणी -

नियोजित तारीख-22-02-2022शिकायत की स्थिति-

स्तर -जनपद स्तरपद -श्रम प्रवर्तन अधि‍कारी

प्राप्त रिमाइंडर-

प्राप्त फीडबैक -दिनांक18-02-2022 को फीडबैक:-Whether a matter concerning deep irregularity can be bypassed on the flimsy ground that the matter is amenable before quasi-judicial court It is dead certain that the chief minister office has supervisory power over the function of the lower judiciary along with the administrative control of the High court of judicature at Allahabad and function of quasi-judicial staff comes under the ambit of the Government of Uttar Pradesh directly. Here an aggrieved applicant submitted against the arbitrary issue of notices to parties without considering the pros and cons of the matter and overlooking its jurisdiction consequently concerned assistant labour commissioner crossed the boundary of its powers delegated by the government. Which is subject to the government to keep its vigilant eyes over such lawlessness and anarchy and obligatory duty of the citizens to bring such matters to government. Government ought to order an inquiry which must be carried out in a transparent and accountable manner. To neglect the matter only promotes law breakers in the society.

फीडबैक की स्थिति -

संलग्नक देखें -Click here

नोट- अंतिम कॉलम में वर्णित सन्दर्भ की स्थिति कॉलम-5 में अंकित अधिकारी के स्तर पर हुयी कार्यवाही दर्शाता है!

अग्रसारित विवरण :

क्र.स. सन्दर्भ का प्रकार आदेश देने वाले अधिकारी प्राप्त/आपत्ति दिनांक नियत दिनांक अधिकारी को प्रेषित आदेश स्थिति

1 अंतरित ऑनलाइन सन्दर्भ 15-02-2022 22-02-2022 श्रम प्रवर्तन अधि‍कारी-मिर्ज़ापुर,श्रम विभाग आख्या उच्च स्तर पर प्रेषित

2 अंतरित ऑनलाइन सन्दर्भ 18-02-2022 25-02-2022 उप श्रमायुक्तमण्डल -मिर्ज़ापुर,श्रम विभाग शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा असंतुष्ट फीडबैक प्राप्त होने पर उच्च अधिकारी को पुनः परीक्षण हेतु प्रेषित. अनमार्क