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

Contract labourers complained to the Assistant Labour Officer (ALO), alleging that they had not received revised minimum wages, retrenchment compensation, notice pay, and other settlement dues after their retrenchment.

Following an inquiry and exchanges with the contractor and the petitioner, whom the ALO treated as the principal employer’s representative, the ALO filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur.

The application was registered as a criminal complaint case, and the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and contractor on 19 September 2019.

The petitioner challenged the cognizance order under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that Section 15(2) provides a claims procedure, not a criminal offence.

Whether Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act creates a criminal offence for which the Magistrate could take cognizance.

Whether the ALO’s application should have been handled as a statutory claims proceeding rather than registered and pursued as a criminal complaint case.

Section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act provides for appointment of an authority to hear and decide claims arising from wage deductions or delayed payment; Section 15(2) permits an application to that authority for appropriate relief.

Section 15(3) empowers the authority to direct payment or refund and, where applicable, compensation.

Section 18 gives the authority specified civil-court powers, while Rule 11 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 directs the authority to follow relevant CPC procedure, subject to the Act and Rules.

Rules 3, 4 and 8 prescribe the form, authorisation and notice procedure for such claims.

The Court held that Section 15(2) provides a procedure for adjudicating wage claims and does not itself create a criminal offence.

The Court considered the statutory scheme and found that proceedings under Section 15 are quasi-judicial claims proceedings, conducted by an appointed authority using the powers and procedure contemplated by Section 18 and the Rules.

Because Section 15(2) concerns applications for directions concerning wage deductions or delay, and does not create an offence, the Magistrate could not properly take cognizance of an alleged offence under that provision.

The application should instead have been registered as a Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case and pursued under the statutory procedure.

It set aside the order dated 19 September 2019 in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 7 of 2019 and granted the opposite parties liberty to initiate the appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

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