Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
Maridegam Radhakrishna Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Bharathi Velu Bus Service - Respondent
Decided On : 08-05-85
The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 does not operate as a bar to the maintainability of a petition under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not a complete Code dealing with all matters relating to the payment of wages. The remedy under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wider in scope and more favourable to the workman than the remedy under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. When a workman is governed by the provisions of both the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is open to him to avail either of the remedies provided under those Acts. A claim barred by time under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 can be entertained under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a motor transport worker, was employed by the first respondent. On December 19, 1970, while driving a motor vehicle covered by a stage carriage permit, owned by the first respondent, on the route Tirupati to Nellore, it met with an accident. The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case. Meanwhile Tirupathi to Nellore route was nationalised. Immediately after the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, he was absorbed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation as the driver. The appellant filed a petition under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Guntur for a direction to the employer to pay the salary and gratuity for the period from December 19, 1970 to October 11, 1973. The Labour Court allowed the petition and directed the management to pay Rs. 7,070/- to the workman. The management filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the petition filed by the appellant under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable and the employee was to seek relief before the forum under the Payment of Wages Act. The workman filed the present writ appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not a complete Code dealing with all matters relating to the payment of wages. The remedy under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wider in scope and more favourable to the workman than the remedy under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. When a workman is governed by the provisions of both the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is open to him to avail either of the remedies provided under those Acts. A claim barred by time under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 can be entertained under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court further held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to inquire into and decide the claim preferred by the workmen under S. 33c (2) of the Act when the Management has denied his right to the wages.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 operate as a bar to the maintainability of a petition under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are a complete Code dealing with all matters relating to the payment of wages? 3. Whether the remedy under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wider in scope and more favourable to the workman than the remedy under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936? 4. Whether a workman governed by the provisions of both the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can avail either of the remedies provided under those Acts? 5. Whether a claim barred by time under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 can be entertained under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 6. Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to inquire into and decide the claim preferred by the workmen under S. 33c (2) of the Act when the Management has denied his right to the wages?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 do not operate as a bar to the maintainability of a petition under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not a complete Code dealing with all matters relating to the payment of wages. 3. The remedy under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wider in scope and more favourable to the workman than the remedy under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 4. When a workman is governed by the provisions of both the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is open to him to avail either of the remedies provided under those Acts. 5. A claim barred by time under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 can be entertained under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to inquire into and decide the claim preferred by the workmen under S. 33c (2) of the Act when the Management has denied his right to the wages.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The order of the Labour Court was confirmed.
( 1 ) THIS case is posted before us on a reference made by a Division Bench. Having been of the view that the question whether the remedy under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is barred by the provisions of S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, arises quite often and having been further of the opinion that the conflict between the two Division Bench decisions in A. B. Saleem v. The Labour Court, Hyderabad, (1973) 2 APLJ (S. N.) 40 and M. Krishnaswamy v. Assam Tea Depot, (1976) 1 APLJ (HC) 291: (1977 Lab IC 432) should be finally resolved the Division Bench directed that the writ appeal be posted before a Full Bench.
( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed as a driver by the management of Sri Venkateswara Bus Union in the year 1939. The said undertaking was transferred to M/s. Bharati Velu Bus Service the first respondent in the year 1949 along with the personnel working in the undertaking including the appellant. He continued in the service of the first respondent without any change in his service conditions. On December 19, 1970 while he was driving a motor vehicle covered by a stage carriage permit, owned by the first respondent, on the route Tirupati to Nellore, it met with an accident. Criminal prosecution was launched against him for rash and negligent driving before the First Class Magistrate, Gudur and he was ultimately acquitted on October 10, 1973. Whereas the appellant claimed that on the very next day after the accident when he reported to duty he was not permitted to attend to the work, the management came forward with the plea that after the accident he went away without even informing them and he never reported for duty thereafter. They further stated that the appellant was arrested on December 19, 1970 and his driving licence was seized by the police on that day. As such it was alleged that the management was not obliged to pay wages for the period for which the workman made the claim. Meanwhile Tirupathi to Nellore route was nationalised. Immediately after the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, he was absorbed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on October 12,1973 as the driver. At that time he was drawing a salary of Rs. 191. 00 per month. As the first respondent failed to pay the salary from December 19, 1970 to October 11, 1973 and gratuity from 1969 to 1974 he filed M. P. No. 57 of 1974 under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Guntur for a direction to the employer to pay the salary and gratuity for the period mentioned above. The Labour Court having found that there was no severance of the Employer-Employee relationship between the appellant and the first respondent and that the management refused to entrust him the work, held that the employer was bound to pay the employee the wages due to him. The claim for payment of gratuity was rejected, but it was held that the management was liable to pay closure compensation amounting to three months wages under S. 25fff of the Industrial Disputes Act. So the management was directed to pay in all Rs. 7,070. 00 to the workman. That order was passed by the Labour Court as long back as on August 8, 1975.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that order the first respondent preferred W. P. No. 5116 of 1975. Our learned brother Raghuvir J. allowed the Writ Petition on December 9, 1975 holding that the petition filed by the appellant under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable and the employee was to seek relief before the forum under the Payment of Wages Act. Against that judgment the workman filed the present writ appeal.
( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 do not operate as a bar to the maintainability of a petition under S. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand, it is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the first respondent that when the employer has disputed the right of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
