LexSITARAM RAMCHARAN ETC. versus M. N. NAGARSHANA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTR 875 their case of benami acquisitJon of these properties- I959 a case which is not now questioned-the fact that the K - signatures of Prahlad Rai and others on some relative edar Nath Motani documents were not their own, cannot disentitle the Prahl:~ Rai plaintiffs-appellants to a decree. The exceptions to the rule contained in the maxim were not considered Hidayatullah J. by the High Court, which proceeded entirely upon the supposition that every illegality or fraud disenti- tled a plaintiff to a judgment. That, however, is not the law. We accordingly hold that the appellants were entitled to a decree in their favour, and with respect, it was wrongly disallowed by the High Court. \Ve set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna, and restore those of the Subordinate Judge, Motihari. In the circumstances of this case, we think that we should make no order about costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed. SITARAM RAMCHARAN ETC. v. M. N. NAGARSHANA & OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Payment of l-V ages-Application claiming overtime wages-Bar of limitatron-Condonation of delay-Applicant, if must show sufficient cause for delay till presentation-Payment of Wages Act, r936, (4 of r936), s. r5(2), second proviso. The appellants, who were employees in the Watch and Ward Department of various textile Mills of Ahmedabad, applied for overtime wages under s. r5(2) of the Payment of Wages, r936. The applications were presented to the authority under that Act between July 22, r953, to October 6, 1953, claiming overtime wages for the period between January r95r, to December, r95r, beyond the period of six months prescribed by the first proviso to that sub-section. Their case as made in the applications for condonation of delay under the second proviso, in substance, was that they were unaware of their rights under s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, r948, until that section was for September 25 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960(1)] r959 the first time correctly interpreted in the Ruby Mills case (Vide Bombay Labour Gazette dated January 1953, Vol. 32, No. 5, Sitaram p. 521.) on May 2, 1952, as making s. 59 of the Factories Act, Rameilar•n Etc, 1948, applicable to them and that they were diligently prosecuting v. their remedy in the industrial Court which held against them. M.N. Nagarshana The authority held against the appellants and the High Court and Others refused to interfere under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The authority found that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay even after the decision in Ruby Mills Case. The second_proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, provides as follows,- " Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient canse for not making the application within such period." It was contended on behalf of the appellants in this Court that once it was proved that there was snfficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period; and in the present cases the ignorance of the true scope and effect of s. 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establish- ments Act, 1948, was such a canse, the bar of limitation was wholly out of the way and the ·application could be filed at any time. Held, that the contention must fail. The second proviso to s. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948, was in substance similar to the provision of s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and could be availed of only by proving sufficient cause for the entire delay till the presentation of the application. Ram Narain Joshi v. Parmeswar Narain Makta, (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 309, referred to. Lingley v, Thomas Firth & Sons, Ltd., (1921) l K.B. 655, Powell v. The Main Colliery Co. Ltd., 1900 A.C. 366, J. Hogan v. Gafur Ramzan, XXXV B.L.R. n43, Salamat v. A/(ent, East Indian Railway; (1938) I.L.R. 2 Cal. 52 and Kamarhatti Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (1952) I L.L.J. 490, distinguished and held· inapplicable. The finding of the authority that the appellants had failed to prove sufficient cause for the delay subsequent to the decision in Ruby Mill• Case was a finding of fact and could not be chal- lenged in this Court. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 9 to 28 of 1957. Appeals from the judgment and order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.