Whether a contractor may be labourer to seek the remedy under payment of wages act 1936? if not, it is blatant abuse of quasi judicial process

 






Booked At Booked On Destination Pincode Tariff Article Type Delivery Location
Mirzapur Kutchery SO 14/02/2022 12:29:27 231001 17.70 Inland Speed Post Mirzapur Kutchery SO
Event Details For : EU438132188INCurrent Status : Item Received
Date Time Office Event
15/02/2022 08:43:05 Mirzapur HO Item Received
15/02/2022 05:13:00 Mirzapur ICH Item Dispatched
15/02/2022 01:29:02 Mirzapur ICH Item Bagged
14/02/2022 21:57:51 Mirzapur ICH Item Received
14/02/2022 15:43:10 Mirzapur Kutchery SO Item Dispatched
14/02/2022 15:38:27 Mirzapur Kutchery SO Item Bagged
14/02/2022 12:29:27 Mirzapur Kutchery SO Item Booked
Booked At Booked On Destination Pincode Tariff Article Type Delivery Location
Mirzapur Kutchery SO 14/02/2022 12:29:27 231001 17.70 Inland Speed Post Mirzapur Kutchery SO
Event Details For : EU438132191INCurrent Status : Item Received
Date Time Office Event
15/02/2022 08:43:05 Mirzapur HO Item Received
15/02/2022 05:13:00 Mirzapur ICH Item Dispatched
15/02/2022 01:29:02 Mirzapur ICH Item Bagged
14/02/2022 21:57:51 Mirzapur ICH Item Received
14/02/2022 15:43:10 Mirzapur Kutchery SO Item Dispatched
14/02/2022 15:38:27 Mirzapur Kutchery SO Item Bagged
14/02/2022 12:29:27 Mirzapur Kutchery SO Item Booked

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 any thing 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 




Beerbhadra Singh

To write blogs and applications for the deprived sections who can not raise their voices to stop their human rights violations by corrupt bureaucrats and executives.

4 Comments

Your view points inspire us

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hon'ble Sir 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.

    ReplyDelete
Previous Post Next Post