J. C. JAIN versus R. A. PATHAK AND OTHERS .

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 12-01-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
J. 0. JAIN 
v. 
R. A. PATHAK AND OTHERS . 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
701 
Payment of Wages-EmPl<?yer's right of appeal--When accrues 
-Paym_ent of Wages Act, r936 (4 of r936), ss. r5(3), r6, r7(r) (a) •• 
The expression " the total sum directed to be paid " used 
in s. 17(1) (a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, properly 
construed, does not mean the total sum directed to be paid to 
each individual applicant. Consequently, an employer against 
whom a direction for .payment is made under s. 15(3) of the 
Act has a right of appeal under s. 17(1) (a} not only when a 
single applicant is awarded a sum exceeding Rs. 300 but also 
when an award of a like amount is made on a single application 
made under s. 16(2) of the Act on behalf of several employees 
belonging to the same unpaid group or on several applications 
consolidated into one under s. 16(3) thereof. Section 17(1) (a) 
does not contemplate that before the right to appeal can accrue 
to the employer in the latter case each individual applicant must 
be awarded Rs. 300 or more. 
; 
Since the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous 
no consideration of any possible hypothetical anomaly can be 
allowed to affect its plain meaning. 
Laxman Pandu and Others v. Chief Mechanical Engineer, West-
ern Railway (B. B. and C. I. Railway), Lower Parel, Bombay. 
(1957) 57 B.L.R. 399, overruled. 
Union of India, Owning the South Indian Railway by General 
Manager v. S. P. Nataraja Sastrigal & Ors. A.LR. 1952 Mad. 
808; A. C. Arumugam & Ors. v. Manager, ]awahar Mills Ltd., 
Salem ]unction, A.IR. 1956 Mad. 79; Promod Ranjan Sarkar v. 
R. N. Mullick, A.LR. 1959 Cal. 318 and Cachar Cha Sramik 
Union v. Manager, Martycherra Tea Estate & Anr. A.LR. 1959 
Assam 13, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
75 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from judgment and order 
dated March 17, 1955, of the Small Causes Court, 
Bombay, in Appeal No. 1 of 1955. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, S. N. 
Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for 
the appellant. 
K. R. Ohoudhuri, for the respondents. 
:r960 
January :rz 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
i96o 
1960. January 12. The JudgmentoftheCourtwas 
J. c. Jain 
delivered by 
v. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-When does an employer get 
R. A. Pathak 
a right to prefer an appeal against a direction made 
and Others 
under sub-s. (3) of s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 
Gajendragadkar J.1936 (4 of 1936) (hereinafter called the Act)? That is 
· 
the short question which arises for our decision in the 
present group of four appeals. The decision of this 
question depends on the construction of s. 17 (l)(a) of 
the Act. In dealing with the question thus posed by 
the present group of appeals we will refer to the facts 
in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1956, and our decision in it 
would govern the three remaining appeals. 
Civil Appeal No. 75of1956 which has been brought 
to this Court by special leave arises from a dispute 
between the General Manager of the Times of India 
Press, Bombay, owned by Benett Coleman & Co, Ltd., 
(hereinafter called the appellant) and some of the 
employees in his service (hereinafter called the respon-
dents). ·In November 1953, 1,066 applications were 
made by the Vice-President of the Times of India 
Indian Employees Union on behalf of some of the 
respondents before Mr. C. P. Fernandes, the authority 
appointed under the Act in which a claim was made 
for arrears of increments alleged to have been with-
held by the appellant from July 1, 1951, to Septem-
ber iJO, 1953, as also for increased dearness allowance 
from January 1, 1953, to August 31, 1953. The 
authority dealt with the whole group of the said 
applications as a single application under s. 16(3) of 
the Act, and held that the claim made by the respon-
dents for increased dearness allowance was not justi. 
fied. In regard to the claim of arrears of increments 
alleged to have been withheld the authority rejected 
the claim made by 761 employees and allowed the 
same in respect of 305 employees. In the result the 
order passed by the authority on 31-12-1954 directed 
the appellant to deposit Rs. 22,698 for payment to 
the said 305 employees. 
The direction thus issued by the authority gave rise 
to two appeals before the Small Causes Court at 
Bombay, which is the appellate authority appointed 
-
•
-
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
703 
under the Act. A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.