Cross-objections are not maintainable in an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, including Order 41, Rule 22, are not applicable to such appeals.

( 1 ) THE question that I am called upon to answer in this civil revision petition is whether cross-objections lie at the instance of the respondent in an appeal preferred under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

( 2 ) THE material facts are brief; The revision petitioner is an employee in the service of the respondent. He filed a claim before the authority under the payment of Wages Act, Visakhapatnam, for Rs. 2,875 as delayec wages and for rs. 700 as compensation. When the case was taken up for hearing the claimant was present. But the employer was absent. He Was set exparte and a direction was given to him to pay the sum of rs. 2,875 claimed as delayed wages within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the direction. The authority, however, did not grant the claim for compensation. The employer preferred an appeal to the district Judge, West Godavari at Eluru who was constituted as the appellate authority under the Act against the direction. The claimant, however, kept quiet without preferring an appeal, but filed cross-objections within 30 days from receiving the notice of the appeal in respect of his claim for compensation which he had not been granted by the authority. The office took an objection to the maintainability of the cross- objections and the District Judge (appellate authority) upheld this objection, saying that the only remedy available- for the claimant was to prefer a substantive appeal and the provisions of order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Gode were not available to him. The claimant has filed this revision petition challenging that view.

( 3 ) SRI V. Narasimha Rao for the petitioner contends that the appellate authority is a Court within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code and consequently all the provisions of that Code including Order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code can be taken recourse to before it. The District Court which is constituted as the appellate authority is. not a creature of the Payment of Wages act and had been existing even before that Act came into force. He relies on the language of rule 22 and points out that there are no limitations placed therein on the right of a respondent to file cross-objections in any appeal pending before a Court. He, therefore, maintains that the cross-objections filed by his client before the appellate authority are maintainable.

( 4 ) ON the other hard, Sri C. V. N. Sastry submits that the right to file an appeal, or cross-objections is a creature of law. Unless a statute specifically pro\ ides for an appeal or cross-objections they cannot be taken resort to by an aggrieved per son. The Civil Procedure code, prescribes the procedure and remedies in ordinary civil Courts arising under the general law. The Payment of wages Act is a special enactment providing for separate remedies for persons feeling aggrieved as per its provisions. It has constituted authorities which are authorised to dispose of claims and counter claims that arise under the Act. In this particular case the Regional Assistant commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam, is such a primary authority. The Act has further specifically conferred appellate power on the District Court. The district Court, while functioning as the appellate authority, has to conduct matters in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not according to the general law and the Civil Procedure Code, excepting to the extent that they are applicable to the procedure that has to be adopted for disposing of matters under the act. Section 17 provides for appeals and any aggrieved party is thus enabled to file an appeal against orders or directions of the primary authority. The petitioner could have himself filed another appeal if he felt aggrieved by the order of the authority. The Act specifically states that the directions of the primary authority are final subject to the result of the appeal under section 17. It does not provide for filing any cross-objections. So, the cross-objections preferred by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document