Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act creates no criminal offence.

Contract labourers alleged that, after their employment ended, their wages and full-and-final dues had not been paid by their contractor, M/s. Haldhar Naik.

The Assistant Labour Officer, Jajpur Road, issued notices to the contractor and involved M/s. Visa Steel Ltd. as principal employer; the petitioner was the company’s Chief Operating Officer and Director.

The Assistant Labour Officer then filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the SDJM, Jajpur. It was registered as 2(c) C.C. Case No. 3 of 2019, and the Magistrate took cognizance against the contractor and the petitioner by order dated 19 September 2019.

The petitioner challenged the order under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, could be registered and proceeded with as a criminal complaint, with cognizance taken against the petitioner for an offence under that provision.

Whether the impugned cognizance order was liable to be set aside, without determining the merits of the workers’ wage claims.

Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides a mechanism for an appointed authority to hear and decide claims concerning unlawful wage deductions or delayed payment; Section 15(2) permits specified persons, including an Inspector or an authorised representative, to apply for a direction regarding such claims.

Section 18 confers civil-court powers on the authority for specified purposes, while Rule 11 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, directs the authority to follow relevant CPC procedure, subject to necessary adaptations.

The Court held that Section 15(2) does not itself create a criminal offence; proceedings under Section 15 are quasi-judicial and should be pursued as a claim proceeding, not as a criminal complaint.

The Court considered the statutory scheme and found that Sections 15 and 18, together with the Rules, establish a procedure for adjudicating wage claims through an authority exercising civil-court powers.

Because Section 15(2) provides for an application seeking a direction on deductions or delayed wages and does not create an offence, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of an alleged offence under that subsection or treat the claim as a criminal complaint case.

The Court therefore set aside the cognizance order without deciding the underlying wage dispute or the parties’ substantive contentions.

It set aside that order and disposed of the CRLMC, leaving the opposite parties at liberty to initiate an appropriate proceeding under the applicable law.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the workers’ claims or the parties’ contentions.