KRISHAN PRASAD GUPTA versus CONTROLLER, PRINTING AND STATIONERY

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 18-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
KRISHAN PRASAD GUPTA 
v. 
CONTROLLER, PRINTING AND STATIONERY 
OCTOBER 18, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.J 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Ss.14, 19, 28, 29, 29A, Paymellt of 
Wages Act, 193(r-Ss. 2 (vi), 15, 17; lndustiial Disputes Act-Ss. 2 (n·j, 33C( 1) 
& (2). 
Jwisdiction of Tiibzmal--Transfer of pe11ding case under payment of 
Wages Act~o jurisdiction to ellteitain-Jwisdiction of auth01ity to enter-
tain/decide claim cases under Payment of Wages Act is special and protected 
and not affected by constinttion of Tribunal--Appeals are colltinuation of 
01iginal proceedings. Paymellt of Wages Act and Industrial Disputes Act are 
'Con-esponding Law '. 
lnte1pretation of Stanttes--Ouster vf jurisdicti01t-Most suitable rule to 
be applie{}-Rule of constmction of giving ordinary meanings to vaiious 
expressions used in the Legislation-To constnte the va1ious sections of the 
E enactment as a whole, each provision throwing light on the rest. 
Appellant an employee of the respondent, tiled case u/s 15 of pay'. 
men! of Wages Act, alleging that the respondent had over a period of time 
deducted monies illegally and unauthorisedly totaling Rs. 48,274.SOp. An 
ex-paite order was passed since the respondent failed to appear. Later, the 
F 
respondent tiled an application for setting aside the said ex-pane order. 
This was rejected whereupon an appeal u/s 17 (l), of Payment of Wages 
Act was tiled before the District Judge. During the pendency of the Appeal 
the Tribunal was constituted and the pending appeal was transferred to 
the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal. In the meantime, the appellant's 
G application was allowed by order dated 20-7-88 for payment of 
Rs.43,092.SOp against which the respondent tiled an appeal u/s 17 of 
payment of Wages Act before the District Judge and it stood Transferred 
to the Tribunal and was allowed by the Tribunal. 
In this appeal it was contended that the appeal pending before the 
H District Judge u/s 17 of the payment of Wages Act could not be legally 
436 
• 
KP. GUPTA v. CONTROLLER PRTG. AND STATIONERY 
437 
transferred to the Tribunal u/s 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and A 
the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The respondents 
submitted that since clause (b) of S.2 has been deleted by Act No. 19 of 
1986, and the Administrative Tribunals Act has been made applicaLle to 
all persons working in factories/industrial establishments, and jurisdic-
tion of all Courts is now vested in the Tribunal, Appeal u/s 17 of the 
Payment of Wages Act will also be before the Tribunal 
Allowing the appea~ this Court 
HELD : 1.1 Since on the original cause of action, a claim u/s 15 of 
B 
the payment of Wages Act could not have been made to the Tribunal, the C 
appeal would not stand transferred to nor can appeal contemplated u/s 17 
of the payment of Wages Act be filed before it. The Appellate Authority is 
part of the justice delivery system constituted u/s 17 of the payment of 
Wages Act. Its jurisdiction will not be affected by the establishment of 
Administrative Tribunals particularly as appeal has always been treated 
to be a continuation of the original proceedings. Consequently, the two tier D 
judicial system, original as well as appellate, constituted under the 'cor-
responding law' like the payment of Wages Act, are not affected by the 
Constitution of the Tribunals and the system shall continue to function as 
before, with the result that if any case is decided u/s 15 of the payment of 
Wages Act, it will not be obligatory to file an appeal before the Tribunal E 
as required U/S 29A of the Act but the appeal shall lie u/s 17 of the payment 
of Wages Act before the District Judge. The pending appeals also therefore, 
not stand transferred to the Tribunal u/s 29 of the Act. The matter involved 
here relates to the exercise of special jurisdiction by the District Judge 
under the payment of Wages Act which is protected jurisdiction. [457-C-F] 
1.2. Though the Tribunal has been constituted as a substitute for the 
High Court under Article 323A, the Labour Courts and Indus trial Tribunals 
etc, over which the High Court exercises jurisdiction continue to function 
with the incongruous result that though the High Court cannot quash their 
judgments, it must continue to supervise their functioning. [458-D] 
2.1. Since the matter involved in this case relates to the ouster of 
jurisdiction of all regular Courts, including the High Court,

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