 |
जनसुनवाई
समन्वित शिकायत निवारण प्रणाली, उत्तर प्रदेश
सन्दर्भ संख्या:- 40019922003323
लाभार्थी का विवरण
नाम Sudarshan Maurya पिता/पति का नाम Brijlal Maurya
मोबइल नंबर(१) 9455024500 मोबइल नंबर(२)
आधार कार्ड न. ई-मेल yogimpsingh@gmail.com
पता Sohta Ka Adda Jungi Road Mirzapur city
आवेदन पत्र का ब्यौरा
आवेदन पत्र का संक्षिप्त ब्यौरा 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
संदर्भ दिनांक 15-02-2022 पूर्व सन्दर्भ(यदि कोई है तो) 0,0
विभाग श्रम विभाग शिकायत श्रेणी अन्य प्रकरण
लाभार्थी का विवरण/शिकायत क्षेत्र का
शिकायत क्षेत्र का पता जिला- मिर्ज़ापुर
संदर्भ संख्या : 40019922003323 , दिनांक - 15 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
Department -श्रम विभागComplaint Category -
नियोजित तारीख-22-02-2022शिकायत की स्थिति-
Level -जनपद स्तरPost -श्रम प्रवर्तन अधिकारी
प्राप्त रिमाइंडर-
प्राप्त फीडबैक -दिनांक को फीडबैक:-
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 अनमार्क
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.
Short submissions of the notice receivers are as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that
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.
2-I pray before the Hon'ble Sir that under section 10 Payment of Wages Act, 1936
DEDUCTIONS FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS. [Sec 10] Employer should give an opportunity to the employee to explain the reason and cause for the damage or loss happened and deductions made by employer from the employee wage should not exceed the value or amount of damage or loss made by the employee.
3-It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that 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. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of annexure 2.
4-I pray before the Hon'ble Sir that In the aforementioned matter when brought up before the police, police took the recourse that they are not technical expert so the investigation is not feasible by the police unless a technical expert may provide its report. For the enquiry by a technical expert, chauki in-charge Bali Maurya forwarded the matter to the executive officer municipality Mirzapur city and a thorough enquiry was carried out by the engineer municipality Mirzapur city and enquiry report dated-31/08/2021 letter number-194 was submitted before executive officer, municipality Mirzapur city. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexure 3.
5-It is submitted before the Hon'ble 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. Hon'ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexure 4.
6-I pray before the Hon'ble Sir that more than two dozen reports of the police is stating that
Yakoob Ali Ansari S/O Mohammad Siddik Mia is a contractor and Yakoob Ali Ansari itself submitted complaint dated 07 June 2021 that he used to take contracts of the construction of houses. But it is unfortunate that you Hon'ble Sir accepted his concocted story based on flimsy ground even when the matter is not amenable under 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 Yakoob Ali Ansari as plaintiff 1 in the case. Circle officer Prabhat Ray submitted his report dated 08/02/2022 is attached as annexure 5 to this communication cum submissions.
The concept of Rule of Law is that the state is governed, not by the ruler or the nominated representatives of the people but by the law.
Hon'ble Sir please save defendants and curb blatant misuse of power and promote rule of law. For this applicant shall ever pray you, Hon'ble Sir.
I swear in the name of that entire entries made here are true to best of my knowledge if anything found wrong, then action may be taken against oath taker.
Date-14/02/2022 Affidavit cum Oath taker
Sandeep Maurya
S/O Brijlal Maurya Mobile number-9125959796,
Address-Sohta Adda, Jangi Road, District-Mirzapur, PIN Code-231001
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.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly we will accept your conciliatory steps if damages may be compensated by the contractor Yakoob Ali Ansari as plaintiff 1 in the case. Circle officer Prabhat Ray submitted his report dated 08/02/2022 is attached as annexure 5 to this communication cum submissions.
Everyone knows that in this largest democracy in the world justice is sold in the hand of corruption which is quite obvious from the blatant abuse of power provided under the constitution of India by the concerned quasi judicial officer who isued arbitrary notices to the opposition without going into the merit of the case.
ReplyDeleteDEDUCTIONS FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS. [Sec 10] Employer should give an opportunity to the employee to explain the reason and cause for the damage or loss happened and deductions made by employer from the employee wage should not exceed the value or amount of damage or loss made by the employee.
ReplyDelete