IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:02.11.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.19288 OF 2009 South Arcot District Municipal Panchayat Workers Union rep. By its Secretary T.R.Ramnath ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Villupuram District. 3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. 4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Gingee, Villupuram District. 5.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vallam, Villupuram District. 6.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Melmalayanoor, Villupuram District. 7.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vanoor, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to implement the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.46337/08/E3 dated 26.06.2008 and further direct respondents 3 to 7 to pay the monthly salary and bonus immediately to the members of the petitioner union. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Vasudevan For Respondents .. Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya, Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER The petitioner is an Association of Municipal Panchayat Workers, working in the various panchayat unions in the Villupuram District. The petitioner Association filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to implement the order of the first respondent dated 26.06.2008 and for a further direction to respondents 3 to 7 to pay the monthly salary and bonus immediately to the members of the petitioner Union. 2.In the order dated 26.06.2008, the first respondent directed all the District Collectors to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner Association stating that all the overhead tank operators and the sanitary workers should be paid salary on or before 5th day of every month and also they should be paid exgratia bonus immediately. Those who are cleaning tank also should be paid similarly and further action should be taken. On the further representation made by the petitioner Association, the second respondent District Collector found that the seven panchayat unions coming under the District have not paid exgratia payment for the pongal period to these workers. In Rishivandhiyam panchayat union, the workers were not paid for a period of three years. In respect of other panchayat unions, it was not paid for two years. It is under these circumstances. the petitioner Association has filed the present writ petition. 3.It is stated in para 3 of the affidavit that instead of paying the salary on a month to month basis, there was undue delay in making payments by the various panchayat unions. If the panchayat unions have no sufficient funds, they should raise loans and disburse salary and in no case, workers should be paid beyond the wage period of a month. Even when representations were made to the second respondent- District Collector (who is also the Inspector of Panchayats), the same state of affairs continued. It is under these circumstances, the first respondent issued a circular to adhere to the payment of the monthly salary on or before 5th of every month. 4.On notice from this Court Ms.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court, a written instruction given by the second respondent District Collector stating that the funds for various Blocks have already been released for the year 2008-2009 and for the year 2009-2010 and the Block Development Officers viz., respondents 3 to 7 have been suitably instructed to pay the pending bills received from the Assistant/Additional Educational Officers, which are due to the Sweepers, immediately. It was also stated that those Block Development Officers have assured him to adhere to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ time schedule in making the payments. It was further intimated that amounts have been released to the various Blocks for making payments to the contingent sweepers who are employed by the respective panchayat unions. The learned counsel also produced a letter sent by the Treasury Officer, Villupuram, releasing the funds towards the payment for the employees working under various panchayat unions. 5.However, Mr.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this is a case of unjust exploitation and the authorities should not be allowed to go scot-free. The workers who are lowly paid cannot be kept waiting for their monthly payment. If such things are allowed, it is nothing but a bonded slavery adopted by the State. Therefore, he wanted a separate direction to be issued from this Court. 6.The grievance projected by the petitioner shows the sorry state of affairs in the various panchayat unions. It is needless to state that the payment for wages by an employer has been codified even during the colonial period by the enactment called as Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 5 of the said Act clearly stipulates the wages of every person in various establishments should be paid before the expiry of the 10th day, after the last day of the wage period in respect of which, the wages are payable. Section 6 of the Act clearly stipulates that wages to be paid in current coin or currency notes. Section 3 of the said Act fixes the responsibility for payment of wages on the employer. This is to re-emphasise that the panchayat union, being an employer, having the responsibility for making payment. Therefore, they cannot postpone the payment on the ground of non-release of funds by some other authority. 7.Under Section 4 of the said Act, it is clearly stipulated that every person responsible for the payment of wages, shall fix the period in respect of which such wages shall be payable and by virtue of Section 4(2), no wage period shall exceed beyond one month. It is also stipulated that the Inspectors under the Act must ensure prompt payment of wages. In case of non-payment, the authorities have been appointed under Section 15 of the Act as controlling authorities. 8.The contravention of provisions of the Act has also been made as a penal offence under Section 20. The authority who empowers to go into the question of delayed payment, has also been empowered under Section 16(2), to award maximum compensation in case of unpaid wages, Section 15(3) of the Act enables the authority to direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding three thousand rupees but not less than one thousand five hundred rupees in the latter case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.By virtue of the amendment made by the State to Section 2 (h), the State Government is empowered to notify the establishments or undertakings, which the State Government, by a notification in the official gazette declared to be an industrial establishment for the purpose of this Act. The employment in the municipalities or panchayat unions are squarely covered by the provisions of the Act and therefore there is no escape for the respondents that in case of delayed payments, they will have to face action by the employees for recovery of the delayed payments including the compensation to be provided under the Act, apart from being prosecuted for violation of the Act. 10.Though this Court suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner to have recourse to the authority under Section 15 of the Act for claiming compensation, the learned counsel submitted that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be circumscribed by any provisions of that Act and this Court alone should grant relief to the petitioner. The valuable power available to the workman, which is not only available very near to their work place but also enables him to get the compensation for the delayed payment. It is not clear as to why the petitioner union has moved this Court with an omnibus prayer for making timely payment. It is unnecessary for this Court to remind the statutory guarantee already available to the workman. But since the matter has been brought to this Court, it was felt necessary to direct the authorities about their obligation to abide by the law and to scrupulously follow the various labour legislations including the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 11.In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 to 7 to immediately disburse the amounts already released by the second respondent forthwith. They are also directed to pay wages of the workmen on or before 5th of every month as directed by the first respondent Commissioner. In case of any infraction, it is always open to the workmen to institute appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law. No costs. mmi Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Villupuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. 4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Gingee, Villupuram District. 5.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vallam, Villupuram District. 6.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Melmalayanoor, Villupuram District. 7.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vanoor, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. 1CC to Mr.K.Vasudevan, Advocate (SR.58238 1CC to The Government Pleader (SR.58374) W.P.No.19288 of 2009 KGK (CO) SS (13.11.2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/