LexL.I.C. OF INDIA versus ANWAR KHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A L.J.C. OF INDIA '..l ~- v. ANWAR KHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. APRIL 23, 2007 B [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, JJ.] Payment of Wages Act, 1936-s. 15(3)-Suit for declaration of age of f retirement-Issue Pending in second appeal-In the meantime application c under the Act and also under U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam claiming wages and compensation-Entitlement of the claimant to the wages disputed-Compensation granted by the Authorities and Courts below-On appeal, Held; The claimant could not have been granted compensation in view of proviso to s. 15(3) as there existed a dispute about entitlement of the claimant-A claim cannot be raised under the Act as well asunder the D Adhiniyam-However, some amount of compensation already paid to the claimant, cannot be recovered-U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishtan Adhiniyam, 1962-s. 18 ~ .... Appellant-Corporation fixed the age of retirement of Field Officer at E 58 years. Employee-respondent filed a suit for declaration that in view of the agreement between the field Officers Association and the appellant- Corporation age of retirement should be 60 years. Suit was decreed. During pendency of second appeal in the matter, respondent moved an application under s. 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as also under s. 18 ofU.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam 1962 claiming compensation Assistant F Labour Commissioner held that the claimant was entitled to the wages for "( - the relevant period plus double the amount as compensation. Appellate Authority modified the Award to the extent that the claimant was entitled to the wages claimed along with compensation of amount equivalent to back wages. Appellant- Corporation filed a Writ Petition questioning correctness of the order of Appellate Authority. Single judge of the High Court dismissed G the petition .Division Bench of High Court also dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal ., In appeal to this Court appellant-Corporation contended that compensation could not have been awarded as there was a bona fide dispute H about the liability. 450 L.l.C. OF !NOIA v. ANWAR KHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGHLRS. 4 51 -- .:. Respondent contended that appellant-Corporation being a commercial A ~- establishment, it is covered by the Adhiniyam; and that porviso to s. 15(3) of the Act cannot be pressed into service because the dispute is relatable to amount payable. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. The heading ofs. 18 ofU.P Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam 1962, is "recovery of wages " It only provides that once an employee under the Adhiniyam is not paid, the procedure for recovery under payment of Wages Act, 1936 is to adopted. Once s.1(6) of the Act applies, tlhe nature of the job is irrelevant. Whether the Field Officers are workmen or not is really if no relevance in view of s. 1(6) of the Act. Section 15 of the C Act is relatable only to claim under the Act The entitlement for compensation is only under the Act and there is no scope for compensation under the Adhiniyam The compensation has to be worked out in terms ofs.15 of the Act There cannot be a claim both u/s 15 of the Act and u/s 18 of the Adhiniyam (Para 12) [455-D, E) D 2. It cannot be said that proviso to s. 15(3) of the Act cannot be pressed into service because the dispute is relatable to amount payable. The question of payability of an amount arises only when somebody is entitled to an amount The proviso makes it clear that when there is bona fide dispute about the amount payable, compensation cannot be awarded. (Para 13) [455-F, G] E 3. In this case. There exists a dispute about the entitlement of the claimant The matter is pending before the High Court Therefore, the amount awarded as compensation is set aside. Pursuant to the directions given a particular sum has been deposited and a sum has been withdrawn therefrom by the legal heirs of the claimant. Though proviso to s. 15(3) has application F considering the fact that the amount has been withdrawn it is directed that there shall not be any recovery. [Paras 14 and 15) [455-G; 456-A, BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6288-6289 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2000 & l.11.1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 37 (Defective) of2000 and C.M. W.P. No. 34897 of 1999 respectively. K. Ramamurthy and S. Rajappa for the Appellant. G H 452 SUPREM
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.