A.S. Qureshi, J.
1. The petitioner herein challenges the Public Notice dated 20(h January, 1978 whereby the property belonging to the petitioner was sought to be sold by auction for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 6,820/- being the arrears of wages payable to Respondent No. 3 in enforcement of the award of the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act The petitioner's case is that the recovery is sought against the personal property of the petitioner although the respondent No. 3 was an employee of the establishment called 'Manoj Printery' which was owned by the wife of the petitioner Chandrikaben Ravjibhai Patel. The petitioner claimed that he had nothing to do with the ownership of the Printery and that his wife was the whole owner and hence the award can be only satisfied against the property of the said wife. Mr. K.L. Abichandani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner's wife Chandrikaben being the owner of the said Printery was held liable for certain breaches under the Shops and Establishment Act, Sales-tax Act etc. Mr. Abichandani, therefore, urged that the impugned order of recovery against the property of the petitioner just because he happens to be the husband of the owner of Marm Printery is illegal and void.
2. Mr. D.G. Karia, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has urged that although the petitioner's wife Chandrikaben was the ostensible owner of Manoj Printery she did not run the business herself nor did she employ him in service, Mr. Karia urged that respondent No. 3 was taken in service by the petitioner who employed respondent No. 3 in services, paid him the wages and sanctioned his leave, wrote accounts and ran business in general. Mr. Karia has urged that the ostensible owner Chandrikaben did not run the business nor was she ever seen in the establishment. Therefore, according to Mr. Karia, the petitioner was the real employer and, therefore, according to him, the award granted by the Labour Court is fully justified. For the purpose of payment of wages, a person who has, in fact, employed a workman and who runs the business and manages the affairs of the establishment, who maintains records of the business and to carries on the general administration, would be liable for the payment of wages although the ostensible owner of the establishment may be somebody else. A person may, for some ulterior purpose or for reasons best known to him, choose to run his business in the: name of his wife or a minor child or someone else, that would not save him from the legal liability to pay wages to the workmen. Hence on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of attachment and auction sale for realisation of the amount of recovery is fully justifiable. The petition therefore, fails and is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.