Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (6) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has discharged duties in the office of the respondent No. 2 from December 1986 to January 1988 and during that period, even though the company had declared lock out, the petitioner was called to attend the duty. The petitioner worked as a steno secretary to the management of respondent No. 2. Since the petitioner was not paid the amount of wages due, he filed Recovery Application No. 3121 of 1990 in the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, which was allowed by the Labour Court by its order dated 2-12-1997 and the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 74,212 and in addition, an amount of Rs. 250 by way of costs. Since all the attempts made by the petitioner to get the amount failed, the petitioner obtained recovery certificate from the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent No. 2-company in its affidavit-in-reply has taken a stand that under the provisions of section 22(1), recovery of money claimed cannot be effected. 5. Mr. D.S. Vasavada, the learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner has worked with the respondent No. 2-company and, therefore, he is entitled to get his due wages from the respondent No. 2. In the submission of Mr. Vasavada, the just claim of the petitioner with regard to wages cannot be defeated on the basis of provisions of section 22. To substantiate this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajnagar Textile Mills v. Textile Labour Association [1998] 2 GLH 15. This Court, in the said case, after inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to consider the provisions of section 22 which provide for suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. The said section reads as under : "22. Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. - (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suit in a civil court. The word 'distress' used in the aforesaid section is not intended to be made the basis for depriving workmen of the recovery of their wages payable to them under the SICA. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the workman had applied for recovery of his dues under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 33C provides method by which the workman can claim money which is due from the employer. Thus, the word 'distress' used in section 22 is required to be construed so as not to deprive the wages earned by the workmen from their employer. Any narrow meaning to the word 'distress' given excluding the wages would tantamount to defeating the purpose for which the Industrial Disputes Act, is enac....