LexPAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR versus SURAJMAL MEHTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B • c D E F ' G • H PAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR v. SURAJMAL MEHTA & ANR. December 3, 1968 (J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Payment of Wages Act (4 of 1936), ss. 2(vi)d and 15, and Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), SS, 25FF and 33C(2)-Retrenchment compen- sation under s. 25FF, Industrial Disputes Act-If wages under Payment of Wages Act-Jurisdiction of Authority under s. 15, Payment, of Wages Act-Scope of. · The State Electricity Board revoked the licence of a company and took over the undertaking. The !st respondent, who was the director of the company, served notices on the employees that their services would not be required. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application under s. 15(2) o'f the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on behalf of the employees, for re· covering from the !st respondent wages for the notice month and retrench- ment compensation under s. 25FF of tlie Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The !st respondent contested the claim as well as the jurisdiction of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act to deal with the application, on the ground that he was not the person responsible !for payment of. com- pensation and that the right of the workmen was defeated by reason of the proviso to s. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, because there was no interruption in their employment and the new employer (the Electricity Board) was responsible:for payment of the compensation. But the Autho- rity held against the !st respondent. The !st respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court held that s. 15 of .the Act did not apply and that the proper forum for such an application was the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) o'f the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In appeal to this Court, on the questions : (1) Whether compensation payable w1der s. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act can fall under the amended definition of wages ins. 2(vi)d of the payment of Wages Act, as it is a 'sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the per- son employed, is ·payable under any law .... which provides for the pay- ment df such sum whethe·r with or without deductions but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made' and . (2) Whether the authority under s. .15 of the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain the application, HELD : (I) The three sections, namely s. 25F introduced into the Industrial Disputes Act, by Act 43 of 1951, and ss. 25FF and 25FFF in- corporated by Act 18 of 1957, involve termination of service in consequ- ence of retrenchment, transfer and closure respectively. In ss. 25FF and 25FFF notice and compensation have been provided for 'in accordance with the provisions oif s. 25F. These words are used only as a measure of compensation and are not used for laying down any time within which the employer must pay compensation. . Since section 25FF unlike s. 25F, does not contain any conditions precedent, it can be said not to have provided any time within which such compensation is to be paid. Therefore, the compensation payable under s. 25FF read with s. 25F of the Indµstria,I .. Disputes Act would be wages within the meanin.g of s. 2(vi) (tl) t>f the Pity-''", ment of Wages Act. [1055 C-E] · · · ·: .~'. · · 1052 SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS .. [1969] 2 S.C.R. Ml•. Hatisjngh Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1960] 3 S.C.R. A 528 and Anakapa/la Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Workmen, [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 730, followed. ( 2) The words 'where contrary to the provisions of the Act, in s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act being the governing words, the Authority appointed under s. 15 ( 1) has jurisdiction to entertain applica- tions only in two classes of cases, namely, of deductions and fines not authorised under ss. 7 to 13 of the Payment of Wages Act and of delay in payment of wages beyond the wage periods fixed und<:r s. 4 and time c:Jf payment laid down in s. 5. Section 15(1) provides that the Autho- rity has the power to determine all matters incidental to the claim arising from deductions from or delay in payment of wages, but while deciding whether a particular matter is incidental to the claim or not, care should be taken neither to unduly expand or curtail the jurisdiction of the Authority, because, the jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction. Section 15(2) postulates that the wages payable by the person responsible for paym
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.