Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Banerji JJ.
Sarangdhar Singh
Versus
Lakshmi Narayan Wahi
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 1560 of 1948 ;
Decided On : MARCH 16, 1955
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - SEC. 22 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - OUSTER - SCOPE - DELAY IN PAYMENT OF WAGES - MEANING - AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 15 - JURISDICTION - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LIABILITY - LIMITATION ACT (9 OF 1908), SEC. 19 - SET OFF - COURT FEES - FINES PAID BY MANAGER - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the legal representative of the deceased Manager of the defendant's press, sued to recover the Manager's salary and fines paid by him for violations of the Factories Act and the Payment of Wages Act. The defendants resisted the action on the grounds that the suit was barred under Sec.22, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, that it was barred by limitation, that they were not liable for the fines paid by the Manager as it was due to his negligence that the cases were brought, and that the defendants had suffered loss on account of negligence, misappropriation and mismanagement of the Press by the Manager.
Finding of the Court:
1. Sec.22, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts only in cases where the sum claimed could have been recovered by an application under Sec.15 of the Act. 2. Delay in payment of wages means wages which are admittedly due, but the payment of which has been postponed on some excuse or another. 3. The authority appointed under Sec.15, Payment of Wages Act, has jurisdiction to construe the terms of the contract of employment in order to determine what wages are to be paid and even if the contract of employment has been terminated, it is open to him to construe its terms in order to determine whether any sums are payable by reason of the termination. 4. The authority appointed under Sec.15, Payment of Wages Act, has no jurisdiction to determine the liability for accounting on account of acts of mismanagement etc. 5. A letter acknowledging liability for the payment of wages, but coupled with a claim to a set-off and a refusal to pay unless the Manager rendered accounts with regard to his acts of mismanagement etc., is a sufficient acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Sec.19(1) of the Limitation Act. 6. A counter-claim is substantially a cross-action and need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or even analogous thereto. 7. A counter-claim must be properly stamped. 8. Fines paid by the Manager of a press for violations of the Factories Act and the Payment of Wages Act, which were committed by the press and for which the Manager was held responsible according to the provisions of law, are recoverable by the Manager from the proprietor of the press.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred under Sec.22, Payment of Wages Act, 1936? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the defendants were liable for the fines paid by the Manager? 4. Whether the Courts below were wrong in not adjudicating on the set-off claimed by the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The authority appointed under Sec.15, Payment of Wages Act, has jurisdiction to determine the terms of the contract of employment in order to determine what wages are to be paid and even if the contract of employment has been terminated, it is open to him to construe its terms in order to determine whether any sums are payable by reason of the termination. 2. The authority appointed under Sec.15, Payment of Wages Act, has no jurisdiction to determine the liability for accounting on account of acts of mismanagement etc. 3. A letter acknowledging liability for the payment of wages, but coupled with a claim to a set-off and a refusal to pay unless the Manager rendered accounts with regard to his acts of mismanagement etc., is a sufficient acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Sec.19(1) of the Limitation Act. 4. A counter-claim is substantially a cross-action and need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or even analogous thereto. 5. A counter-claim must be properly stamped.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Banerji, J.
1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants against whom a suit for money was partly decreed and the decree was affirmed by the. Court of appeal below.
2. Shortly, the plaintiffs case was that one Babu Banwari Lal Arora was the Manager of the Khadga Vilas Press, Patna, owned by the defendants, on a salary of Rs. 100.00 per month. His salary from March 1941 to the 13th of September, 1941, was not paid by the defendants who were also liable to pay Rs. 100.00 to the said Manager for the fines that were realised from him on account of alleged violation of cases under the Factories Act and under the Payment of Wages Act. The Manager died after making a will in favour of the plaintiff who was also entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 28A, being his own salary for the month of August 1941. The probate of the will was taken in due course, and the plaintiff sued for a sum of Rs. 1013/3/- on 10-8-1944.
3. The defendants, proprietors of the Khadga Vilas Press resisted the action on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted by the provisions of Sec.22, Payment of Wages Act (Act 4 of 1936); that it was barred by limitation; that they were not liable for the fines paid by the Manager as it was due to his negligence that the cases were brought, and that the, defendants had suffered loss on account of negligence, misappropriation and mismanagement of the Press by the Manager, and, on that account, the Manager was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 898/11/- and the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 87/9/6 to them. Five different statements were set out at the foot of the written statement showing the liability of the deceased Manager and the plaintiff.
4. The learned Munsif decreed the suit, partly, holding that the salary of the deceased Manager was due from March 1941 to 21-8-1941, & the salary of the plaintiff was due from 1st of August to 21st of August, 1941, at the rates claimed. He disallowed the salary of the deceased Manager from 22-8-1941, to 13-9-1941, as he had absented himself from the Press without any valid excuse. He further held that the defendants were liable to pay for the fines realised from the deceased Manager as he was-convicted for acts done in his official capacity. The other pleas raised by the defendants were-negatived by him.
5. As already stated, the Court of appeal below upheld this decree without any modification.
6. The first point raised by Mr. A. B. Saran it this appeal is that the suit was barred under Sec.22, Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Sec.22, Payment of Wages Act, which will be hereinafter referred to-as the Act, lays down that no Court shall entertairt any suit for the recovery of wages or of any deduction from wages in so far as the sum so claimed could have been recovered by an application under Sec.15 of the Act. Sec.15, sub-s. (2) provides as follows:
"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 of 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 pennission of the authority appointed under sub-s. (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under sub-s. (3)."
Sub-section (1), Sec.15 confers jurisdiction on an Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed or paid in that area, and sub-s. (3) lays down the procedure of the enquiry after an application under sub-s, (2) has been entertained and empowers the Authority to direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit. The amount of compensation is limited, but with this we are not concerned. I
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
