A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision raises rather a vital and important question, which is:"whether a suit filed in a Civil Court for the recovery of wages due from the former employer for the period during which the plaintiff-employee is said to have worked, is barred under section 57 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966":-

( 2 ) SHORTLY, the respondent herein filed a suit alleging that the petitioner-defendant was doing business in jaggery and oils at Chittoortown during the years 1971 to 1974 and that he was employed as Clerk under the defendant from 17-1-71 to the end of February, 1974. As per the agreement, the defendant agreed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 150/- per month in addition to Rs. 3/- as daily allowance at the time of plaintiff leaving the job. He further submitted that he left the job with effect from 1-3-74 and that after waiting for some time, since, the defendart did not choose to pay the amount due, which is Rs. 5,400/-, he filed the suit.

( 3 ) IN the written statement, while generally denying, the defendant averred that the plaintiff was never employed as Clerk under him and therefore, the question of leaving the job in March, 1974, nor payment of any money by way of salary or allowances did not arise.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, I. A. 1231/79 was filed wherein the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was challenged by the petitioner-defendant on the ground that since it was alleged by the plaintiff that he was an employee in a shop run by the petitioner - defendant, the service conditions of the plaintiff are governed by the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and since special remedy has been provided for under the said statute, there is a provision which bars the Civil Court s jurisdiction to entertain any suit for recovery of wages and therefore, it was prayed that the jurisdictional aspect may first be decided. The lower Court dismissed the I. A. on the ground that there is no bar to entertain the said suit, as it is competent for the Civil Court to decide when the very employment of the respondent is denied by the petitioner. Hence the revision.

( 5 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramachandra rao, are (1) Inasmuch as the respondent herein was said to be the employee working under the petitioner s shop and since that claim is one pertaining to the recovery of wages, the Civil Court s jurisdiction is barred under Section 57 of the Act (2) Even though the allegation of employment is denied by the petitioner, yet any claim towards the recovery of wages is nothing but a delayed wage, within the meaning of Section 44 of the Act. (3) There has been an authoritative pronouncement by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the other High Courts on the provisions enacted in section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act which is analogous to Sections 43 and 44 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act, wherein it has been held that the Civil Court, under the circumstances mentioned in the present case, is barred. (4) The corresponding amendment brought in the year 1964 to Section 15 (I) of the Payment of Wages Act by adding the words including all matters incidental to such claims , though has not been brought in Sections 43 and 44 of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act nevertheless will not make any difference in so far as the purport of the decision is concerned. (5) the employer can in every case deny the claim of either employment or wages and thus cause the ouster of jurisdiction, which situation should never be allowed to obtain as it would stultify the effect of special legislation.

( 6 ) THE counter contentions of Sri Anjaneyulu the learned amicus curiae and also Smt. Chamanti the learned counsel for the respondent, which are common, are : (1) The preamble to the A. P. Shops and Establishments act and also the title to Chapter IX of the said Act amply demonstrate that any claim which is made by an employee must be during th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document