JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

[1] This is an appeal from an order of Coyajee J., by which he dismissed the petition presented by the Modern Mills. Ltd., for a writ of certiorari against the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It would appear that an award was made by the Industrial Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, on 20th March 1948, in respect of certain disputes between the textile mills and their employees, and condition 6 of this award provided :

"Persons who are eligible for bonus but who are not in service of the Mill on the date of payment shall be paid in one lump sum on 31st May 1948, provided claims in writing are submitted to the Manager of the Mill concerned before 21st May 1948, after which no application for bonus shall be entertained."

One Jagardeo Shantaram, an employee of the Modern Mills, who had left the services on 12th March 1948, made an application for the bonus which had been declared by a letter dated 18th May 1948, and which letter was received by the Modern Mills on 24th May 1948, and the contention of the Modern Mills was that as the claim had been submitted after 21st May 1948, he was not entitled to any bonus. Thereupon Jagardeo applied to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and that authority held that Jagardeo was entitled to be paid the bonus declared under the award. It is this order which was sought to be challenged by a writ of certiorari.

[2] Now, the contention of Mr. Rege is that it was not open to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act to construe the award made by the Industrial Court. According to him it is only the Labour Court set up under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act which is entitled to construe the award, and in construing the award the authority has acted beyond his jurisdiction.

[3] Now, in order to understand this contention we must look at the scheme of the Payment of Wages Act, IV [4] of 1936. Section 15 of the Act confers jurisdiction upon the authority that is to be appointed under sub-s. (1) of that section, and sub-s. (2) provides :

"Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official or a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, or any other person acting with the permission of the authority appointed under sub-s. (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-s. (3)."

Therefore it is competent to the authority appointed under S. 15 (1) to determine whether any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person contrary to the provisions of the Act; and under the definition of "wages" bonus is a part of wages. Now, S. 7 lays down what are the deductions which may be made from the wages of an employee, and sub-clause (2) (h) provides the deductions required to be made by an order of a Court or other authority competent to make such order. The contention of Mr. Rege is that the Modern Mills refused to pay the bonus to the employee because they were required not to pay that bonus under the award of the Industrial Court. But it is for the authority under S. 15 (2) to determine whether such a deduction made by the employers was an authorised deduction under S. 7. If the contention of the employer is that he is required by the award not to pay the wages, it is for the authority to be satisfied that such a contention is a valid one, and in order to determine that he must construe the award and be satisfied that the award on which the employer is relying requires the employer not to pay the bonus. It is impossible to contend, in my opinion, that it is not open to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act to construe the award in order to determine whether the deduction made by the employer was an authorised deduction or not.

[4] It is then urged that what the authority has done is real

Click Here to Read the rest of this document