The Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to determine the question of potential wages or to upgrade an employee from one cadre to another.

Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Payment of Wages Act, 1936', 'SUBJECT': 'Jurisdiction of Payment of Wages Authority', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Section 15(3)', 'Section 17']}
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a painter employed in the Indian Naval Dockyard, was re-classified as a Brush painter and his wages were reduced. He applied to the Payment of Wages Authority for refund of the deducted amount, claiming that the re-classification was illegal and he was entitled to wages according to the earlier notification.
Finding of the Court:

The Payment of Wages Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an application claiming to recover the amount of unlawful deduction on the plea that the applicant is entitled to receive wages on the footing that he ought to have been appointed to another post and should have been paid wages as occupying that post.
Issues: Whether the Payment of Wages Authority had jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the petitioner contending that he should not have been re-classified as a Brush painter and should have been paid wages fixed under the earlier Notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to decide the actual terms of the contract between the parties, but it has no jurisdiction to determine the question of potential wages. If an employee claims to be entitled to higher wages if his claim to be placed on a higher wages scheme had been recognized, that would not be a matter within the ambit of the Authority's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and the rule was discharged with costs.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed by one Anant Bhagoji against an order passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No. 16 of 1953 challenging the order dismissing his application passed by the Payment of Wages Authority.

2. The facts which give rise to this revision application are few and simple. In the year 1940, the petitioner was employed as a painter in the Indian Naval Dockyard on a daily wage of Re. 1-12-0. Prior to the introduction of the prescribed scales laid down in the Ministry of Defence Notification No. 2972 dated 31-12-1947, the petitioner was earning Rs. 2-10-0 per day.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 241 (2), Government of India Act, 1935, the Government of India published the Civilians in the Defence Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1947, by Notification No. 2972 dated 31-12-1917 and the petitioner was asked compulsorily to elect to be governed by those rules. The petitioner elected to be governed by those rules.

As a result of the election made by the petitioner, his pay was fixed with effect from 1-1-1947 at Rs. 70/- in the prescribed scale of Rs. 60-5/2-75-3-105 according to the instructions contained in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 2-2-1948. The petitioner earned wages at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month till the end of the year 1948.

Thereafter, the Government of India, by Notification No. 2260/A dated 23-12-1948, ordered, in partial modification of the previous Notification dated 31-12-1947 re-classification of certain workmen in different categories and prescribed new scales of pay for those categories. Instructions were also issued in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 27-4-1949 relating to the tests to be applied for classification of workmen in those new categories.

The petitioner did not subject himself to the tests which he was required to satisfy. The petitioner was thereupon re-classified in the category of Brush painters and his pay scale was fixed in the category of Brush painters at Rs. 40-1-50/ E.B. 2-60 and the petitioners wage was re-fixed at Rs. 65/- per month, Rs. 60/- being his wage and Rs. 5/- being personal wage. That was done in accordance with the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letters dated 2-2-1943 and 15-6-1948.

The petitioner thereafter applied to the Captain Superintendent of India Naval Dockyard, Bombay, and contended that the revision of pay scale resulting in reduction of his wages was illegal and that he was entitled to receive wage according to the Notification dated 31-12-1947. The respondent refused to accent the demand made by the, petitioner. The petitioner thereupon applied to the Payment of Wages Authority, Bombay for refund of the sum of Rs. 240/- which he alleged had been illegally deducted from the petitioners wages.

Before the Payment of Wages Authority, it Was urged on behalf of the respondent that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application inasmuch as the Governor-General had power to revise the pay scales at his will. It was also contended that there was in fact no deduction as contemplated by the Payment of Wages Act.

The Payment of Wages Authority held that he had Jurisdiction to hear the application, but in his view there had been no unlawful deduction made from the wages payable to the petitioner and dismissed the application. Against the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority dismissing the application, an appeal was preferred to the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 17, Payment of Wages Act.

In appeal, the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the Payment of Wages Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and there was no unlawful deduction of wages as contended by the petitioner. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes on that view confirmed the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority. The petitioner has come to this Court against the order passed by the learned Chief Judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document