The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Labour Commissioner rejecting the wage claim application under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The petitioner, Surendra Naik, filed an application before the Labour Commissioner claiming wages due for work performed as a crew member on the barge M.V. Mahima, owned by the respondent. The petitioner alleged non-payment of wages, despite an existing award in his favor. The respondent, in his reply dated 28.04.2022, admitted to being the proprietor of M/s Vishal Shipping Company and confirmed the petitioner’s employment on the barge.
The primary issue revolved around the misnaming of the employer in the proceedings. The Union, in its letter dated 28.12.2012, inadvertently mentioned the employer as M/s Vishal Shipping Company Private Limited instead of M/s Vishal Shipping Company. This mistake was considered by the Labour Commissioner as a significant flaw, leading to the rejection of the petitioner’s application.
The petitioner, represented by Shivraj Gaonkar, argued that the notice dated 16.04.2013 was forwarded to the correct address of the proprietor, near Busy Bee School, Vasco, as admitted by the respondent.
The counsel relied on the case of Forest Realty vs. Taksha Spaces Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that a remark “Unclaimed-Return to Sender” from the Postal Authority must be good service.
The petitioner also submitted documents, including the Certificate of Registration of the barge and a log book, proving the petitioner’s employment with the respondent.
The bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande emphasised that the name of the proprietorship concern holds no legal entity; it is the proprietor who is liable. The court noted that the Labour Commissioner ignored several critical aspects, including the conciliation proceedings, the award, and the fact that the petitioner worked for the respondent.
The court also referenced the case of Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes, highlighting that a proprietary concern is not a company and the proprietor is solely responsible for its conduct. Additionally, reliance was placed on the case of Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, emphasising that the name of a proprietorship can be substituted with the proprietor’s name without legal consequence.
The Bombay High Court concluded that the Labour Commissioner’s rejection of the application was based on overly technical grounds, disregarding the established facts and the nature of a proprietorship concern. The impugned order was quashed, and the application was restored to the Labour Commissioner’s file for a fresh decision on its merits.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
