THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26978 of 2007 ORDER: The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, the 1st respondent, under the Payment of Wages Act (for short ‘the Act’), against the petitioner. In the application submitted by him, the 2nd respondent stated that he received a complaint, dated 13.08.2007, from the T.T.D. Licensed Porters Welfare Society (for short ‘the welfare society’), alleging that the delayed wages for its members were not paid from 09.06.2005 to 08.06.2006. He prayed for orders before the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,64,160/-, from the petitioner. It was presented with a delay of about two years. The matter was taken up as P.W.M.P.No.9 of 2007. The 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. On receiving the notice, the petitioner filed counter and raised an objection as to the very maintainability. In this Writ Petition, the very initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is challenged. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that every objection raised by the petitioner, needs to be considered by the 1st respondent at the time of hearing. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The 2nd respondent was impressed by the complaint received by him from the President and Secretary of the Welfare Society. He was under obligation to verify as to whether the persons in question were in employment of the Devasthanam, at all, and if so, the wages due to them. This would have been possible, had he verified the muster rolls, or any other connected record. Even if no such record is available to him, he ought to have issued notice to the petitioner to know whether the members of the said welfare society have been employed by the petitioner at all. The proceedings under the Act are totally and substantially different from those under the Industrial Disputes Act and other related enactments. While an individual can raise an industrial dispute for reinstatement into employment or appointment etc., the proceedings under the Act, can be initiated, only after he comes to be employed. The area of controversy must be confined to the payment of wages, subsequent to such employment. When the very basic question as to whether an individual is in employment of the so-called employer, at all, is in dispute, then the occasion to initiate proceedings under the Act, does not exist. Further, in the instant case, the complainant, who approached the 2nd respondent, is not an individual from whom the necessary particulars could have been gathered. It is a general representation made by a welfare society, which does not contain the particulars of the employees, dates and terms of their employment. The 2nd respondent was under obligation to verify the necessary jurisdictional facts from the petitioner before he initiated proceedings under the 1st respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, as prayed for, and it is directed that, in case the 2nd respondent intends to proceed against the petitioner, he shall first ascertain the facts, as regards the employment of the persons for whose benefit, he claims the wages. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.06.2010. GJ