LexBOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. versus JAGAN NATH PANDURANG AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
·C
D
E
F
G
J
929
BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD.
v.
JAGAN NATH PANDURANG AND ORS.
March 22, 1972
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DuA, JJ.]
Constitution of India,
1950-Article
133( 1)(b)-$cope-Appeals
-Certificate to dppoeal to Supreme Court.
In order to attract article 133(1)(b) the essential requirement is
that there must be involved in the appeal to this Court a claim or question
respecting property of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000/- in addition
to or other than the subject matter 0f the dispute; if there i9 no question
or claim raised respecting property other •.han the subject matter, then,
clause (a) of article 13 3 will apply. Adding future interest or possible
further claims to the original value of the subject matter till the date
of the judgment of the High Court and which items are not the subject
of consideration by the High Court .will not enable a party to plead that
the claim so calculated exceeds Rs. 20,000. {~40 OJ
The respondent had filed applications under the 'Payment of Wages
Act 1948, claiming overtime wages for the period 1957 to 1958 and
wages for weekly off days for the period 1962 to 19·63.
Against the
judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the appellate
authority holding the claim as time barred, the appellants filled appeal
to this C(}urt on the basis of a certificate issued by the High Court under
article 133 (l ){b). In its application before the High Court the appellant
had prayed for the grant of a certificate that the
amount or value of
the subject matter before all the authorities, in the appeals, as well as
in the High Court and still in dispute in the proposed appeal to this
Court was Rs. 20,000/- and upwards, and, in the alternative on the
~round that the c~e was fit one for appeal to this Court. On the basis
of the claims made by the workmen as overtime wages and weakly off
days wa~s for the particular periods, the appellant had calculated at
the same rate for subsequent periods till the judgment of the High Court
and claimed that the amount or value in dispute in appeal to this Court
was ove-r Rs. 20,000/-. The appellant had also urged that it would have
to meet in future also claims from its workmen and, as such, it will
have to face a recurring IiabiHty. On this basis the apPellant had raised
the plea that the judgment of the High Court involved directly or in~
directly a claim or a question in respect of prc>perty of the value of
Rs. 20,000/- and more.
The respondents moved this Court for revocation of the Certificate.
'Illey urged that what weighed with the High Court ·'for granting a ce-rti-
ficate under article 133 (1 )(b) was the circumstance that the nature cf
the demands by the workmen were such as they wete l'Jcurring claim
arising in the future also and as such the final
judgment and
order
of the High Court involved , directly or indirectly a claim
respecting
property of the value not less than Rs. 20,000/. and that this view of
the High Court was erroneous.
HELD :that the certificate issued by the. High Court under article
133 ( 1) (b) was not proper and valid and hence the appeal was unsu~
tainable.
·
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
(1972} 3 S.C.IL
(i) The High Court bas not given any ipdication as to bow it issued
the certificate under article 133(1)(b): it is clear that it did not grant
the certifkat.e on the claim made by the appellant, under clause (a) or
clause (c) of article 133(1), [937 Al
(ii) In view of the fact that the High Court granted the certificate
under .article 13 3 (1 )(b) , it has to be presumed that it has accepted the
appellant's plea that a certificate could be granted under the clause
when there is a recurring liability, which, if calculated 'for
subsequent
years, will be Rs. 20;000; .. or more. {1937 CD]
(iii) But, the present case is not one where the decision of the High·
Court, apart from dealing with. the subject matter in dispute before it,
has the effect cJf affecting. the rights of the appellant regarding other
properties, including money. The judgment of. the High Court bas. only
adjudicated upon the subject matter of the specified claim of the work~
men which was for a particular period. The 'judgment does not involve
directly or indirectly, 3-?art . from the subject matter of the writ petition,
any claim or question respecting property or money of the value of
Rs. 20,000/~ and more.
The appellant
was not entitled to notionally
add, to the-Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.