Liability for wage payments attaches to the official post or department, not the officer in their personal capacity.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Authorized Officer under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Respondent No. 2).

In P.W. Case No. 1 to 31 of 2009, Respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,01,188.40 to thirty-one workmen (Respondent Nos. 4 to 34) as unpaid wages.

The petitioner contended that he was being held liable in his personal capacity, despite the underlying dispute involving his official post and the Minor Irrigation Department.

Whether the petitioner is personally liable to satisfy the wage claims of the workmen or if the liability rests with the official post and the concerned government department.

The court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle of administrative liability, distinguishing between the personal liability of an individual and the official liability of a person holding a public office (specifically the Executive Engineer).

The court further considered the remedial nature of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, regarding the timely payment of wages to workmen.

The court examined the impugned order and observed that while the direction for payment was issued against the petitioner, the liability arose from his official function.

The court noted that the petitioner cannot be held personally liable for these dues because the direction was effectively issued against the office he occupied.

Highlighting the socio-economic status of the "poor workmen" and the relatively small individual amounts (approximately Rs. 3,834/- per person), the court reasoned that the obligation to pay lies with the state entity.

Consequently, it shifted the burden of payment from the petitioner’s personal capacity to the office of the Minor Irrigation Department, Bokaro.

The court held that the office of the Minor Irrigation Department, Bokaro, is liable for the payment of Rs. 1,01,188.40 to the respondent workmen.

No order was passed to quash the recovery itself, but the source of the liability was redirected to the department.