Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Sarjoo Prasad JJ.
A.Hasan
Versus
Mohammad Shamsuddin
Civil Revision No. 774 of 1950 ;
Decided On : APRIL 26, 1951
[PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT] - [AUTHORITY] - [CIVIL COURT] - [SUBORDINATE TO HIGH COURT] - [REVISION] - The Authority appointed under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act is a Court & a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec.115, Civil P. C. The Authority acts judicially; it follows the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, & has that powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit. Finally, it has the power to grant a declaration. The question of subordination too presents no real difficulty. Upon this point there is a significant Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Parthasarathy Naidu V/s. Chintlacharvu Rao, 47 Mad. 369, where a quotations is made from Rex V/s. Shoredith Assessment Committee,, (1910) 2 K.B. 859 at p. 880 wherein it was pointed out that subjection to the High Court is a necessary & inseparable incident to all tribunals of limited jurisdiction. The existence of the limit presupposes a higher authority to determine & enforce it. Any inferior tribunal cannot be permitted to determine the limits of its own, jurisdiction, or to trespass beyond those limits without some power of check. That would be intolerable. In this country, in the absence of anything to the contrary, it is the High Court to which such a tribunal will be subordinate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, proprietor & director of the Sasamoosa Sugar Works Limited, filed a petition in revision against the order of the prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, directing the petitioner to pay the workers the amount deducted from their wages without any legal justification. The petitioner raised preliminary objections that the application under the Act (Sec.15) was not maintainable as proper persons were not parties to the applications and further that the application was time-barred. The Authority disallowed these objections. The petitioner then wanted time to examine accounts and to produce witnesses, and the said Authority adjourned the case to be put up on the 2nd of November, 1950. Before the application could be taken up, on 1-11-1950, the petitioner moved the High Court & obtained a rule as also an order for stay of further proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Authority appointed under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act is a Court & a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec.115, Civil P. C. The Authority acts judicially; it follows the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, & has that powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit. Finally, it has the power to grant a declaration. The question of subordination too presents no real difficulty. Upon this point there is a significant Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Parthasarathy Naidu V/s. Chintlacharvu Rao, 47 Mad. 369, where a quotations is made from Rex V/s. Shoredith Assessment Committee,, (1910) 2 K.B. 859 at p. 880 wherein it was pointed out that subjection to the High Court is a necessary & inseparable incident to all tribunals of limited jurisdiction. The existence of the limit presupposes a higher authority to determine & enforce it. Any inferior tribunal cannot be permitted to determine the limits of its own, jurisdiction, or to trespass beyond those limits without some power of check. That would be intolerable. In this country, in the absence of anything to the contrary, it is the High Court to which such a tribunal will be subordinate.
Issues: 1. Whether the Authority appointed under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act is a Court & a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec.115, Civil P. C.? 2. Whether the application under the Act (Sec.15) was maintainable as proper persons were not parties to the applications? 3. Whether the application was time-barred?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Authority appointed under Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act is a Court & a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec.115, Civil P. C. The Authority acts judicially; it follows the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, & has that powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit. Finally, it has the power to grant a declaration. The question of subordination too presents no real difficulty. Upon this point there is a significant Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Parthasarathy Naidu V/s. Chintlacharvu Rao, 47 Mad. 369, where a quotations is made from Rex V/s. Shoredith Assessment Committee,, (1910) 2 K.B. 859 at p. 880 wherein it was pointed out that subjection to the High Court is a necessary & inseparable incident to all tribunals of limited jurisdiction. The existence of the limit presupposes a higher authority to determine & enforce it. Any inferior tribunal cannot be permitted to determine the limits of its own, jurisdiction, or to trespass beyond those limits without some power of check. That would be intolerable. In this country, in the absence of anything to the contrary, it is the High Court to which such a tribunal will be subordinate. 2. The application under the Act (Sec.15) was maintainable as proper persons were not parties to the applications. The failure to make Mr. Lari a party at the first instance did not make the applications incompetent, & there can be no objection to adding Mr. Lari as a party at a subsequent stage. 3. The application was not time-barred.
Final Decision: The petition in revision was dismissed with costs; hearing fee five gold mohurs. The Authority was directed to write out a self-contained order dealing specifically with the points raised.
Sarjoo Prosad, J.
1. This petition in revision has been presented by one A. Hasan, proprietor & director of the Sasamoosa Sugar Works Limited. It arises out of a proceeding under the Payment of Wages Act (iv [4] of 1986). The opposite party to the petition are the General Secretary of the Sasamoosa Workers Union representing the daily coolies of the Sugar Works Limited and one Dhunmun.
2. The facts are briefly these : On the 12th of April, 1950, a number of workers of the Sugar Works presented several petitions before the District Magistrate of Saran, who is the prescribed Authority within the meaning of the Act claiming that a deduction of wages had been made without any legal justification during specified periods for which they had been working, and that accordingly these amounts which were justly due to them should be realised from the Sugar Works concerned. Another such petition was also, presented to the same Authority on the 25th of August, 1960, by another set of workers. The Authority concerned admitted the applications and issued notice against the petitioner and one S. M. Zaki, described at one place in the petition as the General Secretary and at another place as the General Manager of the Sasamoosa Sugar Works Limited. When the case was taken up on the 6th of October, 1950, the petitioner who appeared on the date seems to have raised preliminary objections that the application under the Act (Sec.15) was not maintainable as proper persons were not parties to the applications and further that the application was time-barred. The Prescribed Authority aforesaid disallowed these objections. The petitioner then wanted time to examine accounts and to produce witnesses, and the said Authority adjourned the case to be put up on the 2nd of November, 1950. It may be observed that the two objections on the date in question were raised orally without any regular petition stating all the material facts bearing on them. The applicants, who are opposite party here, filed in reply a petition praying that Mohammad Qasim Lari may be made a party to the applications to avoid any technical objection. Later, on 12-10-1950, after the above order had been passel, a written petition was actually filed before the Authority mentioning the particulars on which the preliminary objections were based. The allegation in this petition is that one Mohammad Qasim Lari had been named as the manager of the factory under Clause (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 9, Factories Act (XXV [25] of 1935) corresponding to Section 7 of the Act of 1948, & that the said Qasim Lari, was responsible for payment of wages to the parsons employed in the factory. Therefore, it stated that the said Qasim Lari should have been made a party to the applications filed by the workers, & he being not a party, the applications could not be entertained. It was also alleged that the applications were barred by limitation within the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.15, Payment of Wages Act. This petition the Authority directed to be put up for hearing in the presence of the parties on the date fixed, that is, 2-11-1950, & the application has not yet been disposed of. Before the application could be taken up, on 1-11-1950, the petitioner moved this Court & obtained a rule as also an order for stay of further proceedings.
3. It would thus appear from the facts stated above that the petition filed on 12-10-1950, containing the preliminary objections is still pending, & it was, therefore, premature on the part of the petitioner to rush up to this Court & obtain a rule as also a stay of further proceedings without disclosing the fact that a regular petition containing the objections aforesaid was still pending consideration by the Authority competent to hear & decide the matter. It is pointed out that under Sec.15, Sub-section (3), Payment of Wages Act, it is not necessary that the objections should be raised in the form of a regular petition & the preliminary objections havi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
