Ignorance of law cannot constitute sufficient cause for delay in making a claim under the Payment of Wages Act.

Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - IGNORANCE OF LAW - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - LIMITATION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - FACTORIES ACT - WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT - LEGAL PRINCIPLE - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, employees of the Watch and Ward Department of two mills, filed an application under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of delayed wages. The Authority dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners had failed to show sufficient cause for not making the claim within time. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Authority under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Authority was right in dismissing the application as ignorance of law cannot constitute sufficient cause for delay in making the claim. The Court also observed that the mills should arrive at a fair settlement with the petitioners to maintain industrial peace and proper relations between employer and employees.
Issues: 1. Whether ignorance of law can constitute sufficient cause for delay in making a claim under the Payment of Wages Act? 2. Whether the Authority was right in dismissing the application of the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Ignorance of law is not sufficient cause for delay in making a claim under the Payment of Wages Act. 2. The Authority was right in dismissing the application of the petitioners as they had failed to show sufficient cause for not making the claim within time.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.

JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. These two petitions are on behalf of the employees of the Watch and Ward Department, in one case of the Rohit Mills, Ahmedabad, and in the other case of the Rajnagar Spinning, Weaving Manufacturing Co., Ltd, Ahmedabad. These employees made an application on 23-9-1953, to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages which according to them had been delayed; and in the case of the Rohit Mills the claim was with regard to wages from 1-1-1951, to 31-12-1952, and with regard to the other mill the claim was with regard to wages from 1-1-1951, to 30-6-1953; The basis of the claim was that the lights of these employees were governed by the Factories Act and under the provisions of the Factories Act, inasmuch as they had worked more than eight hours a day, they were entitled to overtime due.

Admittedly, the claim was made in respect of most of the wages six months beyond their becoming due, and as under Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, a claim made after six months is barred, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to satisfy the Authority that they had sufficient cause for not making the claim within time, The Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to show sufficient cause, and therefore in the case of the Rohit Mills he dismissed the application of the petitioners and in the case of the other mill he dismissed the bulk of the claim made by the employees. It is against this decision of the Authority that the petitioners have come to this Court under Arts. 226 and 227.

2. In the first place, a preliminary objection is taken that the petitioners should have preferred an appeal as provided by the Act and should not have come under Arts. 226 and 227 to this Court. In our opinion there is no substance in that contention. As has been pointed out in -- "Prem Narayan v. D. T. M. Bhusawal, AIR 1954 Bom 78 (A), the scheme of the Payment of Wages Act is that an application for payment of wages is only entertained under Sub-section (3) of Section 15, Payment of Wages Act, after it has been admitted on sufficient cause being shown if it is presented after the period of limitation laid down in Sub-section (2). The section relating to appeals, viz. Section 17, only makes a direction under Sub-section (3) given by the Authority appealable.

Now, a direction under Sub-section (3) would be a direction on merits after the application was entertained, but in this case the direction given by the Authority is not on merits and not falling under Sub-section (3), but it is a decision under Sub-section (2) holding that the applicants had failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the application within time. Such an order is not made appealable under Section 17. Therefore, the only remedy that the petitioners had to challenge the decision of the Authority was by coming to this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioners could not also have come to this Court under Section 115, Civil P. C., because a Division Bench of this Court in--Spring Mills, Ltd. v. G. D. Ambekar, AIR 1949 Bom 188 (B) has held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not a Court subordinate to this Court and therefore this Court has no revisional powers over the Authority under Section 115, Civil P. C.

3. Coming to the merits of the matter, it appears that Section 70, Shops and Establishments Act, which was passed in 1948 provided:

"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to any person employed in or within the precincts of a factory and the provisions of the Factories Act shall, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, apply to such persons."

Now, under the Factories Act the petitioners would not have satisfied the definition of "worker", but Section 70, Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, extended the operation of the Factories Act and made the Factories Act applicable to persons working in the precincts of a factory, and as admittedly the petitioners worked within the preci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document