The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Payment of Wages Authority has the jurisdiction to determine the existence of the employer-employee relationship as an incidental matter under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, when the relationship existing between the parties is disputed, the payment of wages authority has jurisdiction to go into that question. It arises in this way : the respondent in this revision petition filed C. Mis. 14 of 1969 under s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called the Act) claiming a sum of Rs. 385 together with compensation of Rs. 100 from the petititioner in this revision petition. His case was that he was an employee under the petitioner, that he was being paid daily wages at Rs. 7 per day, that the petitioner-employer had failed to pay his wages from 1st January 1968 upto 26th July 1968 and in spite of his efforts that amount was not paid; so the proceedings were initiated before the Court of the Additional first Class Magistrate, Bangalore, claiming the said relief.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in this revision petition denied that the respondent was his employee and that he was paying daily wages to him. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore City, who heard the said petition, by his order dt. 30h June 1969 held that the very basis of the claim being disputed, the authority had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and accordingly dismissed the petition.

( 3 ) THE correctness of this order was challenged in an appeal files under S. 17 (1) of the Act before the Second Additional District Judge bangalore and the learned District Judge held that the authority had jurisdiction to decide as to whether the respondent was or was not an employees of the petitioner and accordingly set aside the order of the trial Court and remitted the case back to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore city, for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

( 4 ) IT is the correctness of his order that is challenged in this revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings taken under the provisions of S. 15 of the Act are summary proceedings, and therefore it is not competent for the authority to go into the question of the existence of relationship between the parties. In support of this submission, he placed reliance upon the two judgments of this court. The first is the judgment reported in the Manager, Codilbail Press v. K. Monappa, 1962 Mys. L. J. 968, wherein this Court has stated at page 971 as follows :"the main purpose ot the Payment of Wages Act, as revealed from its provision, is, the prevention of illegitimate deductions from the wages of an employee and the delay in their payment. Under S. 15 of the Act which aims at the accomplishment ot that purpose, every adjudication necessary for the fulfilment of that objective may prima facie appear permissible. Where, for example, an employer admits that the relationship of employer and employee subsists between him and the applicant, but there is a controversy about the quantum of wages payable by him to the applicant, an enquiry into that question for the purpose of determining the actual amount payable by way of wages on the basis of the admitted terms of employment would, it is reasonable to think, fall within the orbit of an enquiry under S. 15, other similar incidental questions may also fall within the scope of such enquiry although it would be difficult to make an exhaustive enumeration of the questions which may properly form the subject matter of such adjudication. "it is clear from the pronouncement of Somnath Iyer, J. (as he then was) that the Court did not decide this question and merely stated that the jurisdiction to enquire into the truth of employment could be debatable. It is further necessary to note that this Court made a reference to the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Viswanath Tukaram v. General Manager, Central Railways, AIR 1958 Bom. 111 FB, and did not express its dissent from the view expressed therein.

( 6 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document