Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. Sinha
B. N. ELIAS AND CO. PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORITY APPOINTED UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - Respondent
Matter 173 Of 1959
Decided On : APRIL 07, 1960
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTION 15(2) - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-F - RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION - WHETHER WAGES - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, carried on business under the name of "Empire Bone Mills". One of its businesses involved crushing raw bones and selling the products. Due to partition of India in 1947, the petitioner lost its principal sources of raw bones and faced competition from other bone mills nearer to the sources of supply. As a result, the petitioner was compelled to discontinue its operations, lay off its workmen, and eventually close its business in January 1958. On 13th January, 1958, 92 of its workmen were retrenched and compensation was paid under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 9th April, 1959, respondent No. 2, an official of a registered Trade Union authorized by 65 workers of the petitioner, filed an application before the respondent No. 1, the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, claiming proper compensation and gratuity due to retrenchment, aggregating to a sum of Rs. 13,184-54 np. The application was made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to entertain the application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as the compensation payable under Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be taken to be an implied term of the contract of employment and, therefore, came within the definition of 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Court further held that the question of whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act was a mixed question of fact and law, and that the finding of the Court below on this issue contained an error of law on the face of the record.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation payable under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, comes within the definition of 'wages' as defined by the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act? 2. Whether the application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act was rightly decided by the Court below, and whether there was an error of law on the face of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, includes 'any sum payable to such a person by reason of the termination of his employment'. The compensation payable under Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a sum payable to the workman by reason of the termination of his employment. Therefore, the compensation payable under Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, falls within the definition of 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2. The question of whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act is a mixed question of fact and law. The Court below erred in law by holding that the six months' period for filing the application should be calculated from the last day of the correspondence, if there is any correspondence. The law is that every single moment of delay must be explained and inaction is as much fatal as mere negligence.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Court below dated 19-5-1959, which had condoned the delay in filing the application under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and directed the Court below to deal with the application for condonation in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913. One of the businesses of the Company is carried on under the same and style of the "empire Bone Mills", In the said business, the petitioner crushes raw bones at its bone mills at Bansberia in the District of Hoghly and sells the various products of such crushig. It is stated that by reason of the partition of India in 1947, the petitioner lost a large number of principal sources of raw bones situated in Pakistan and also had to face competition with other bone mills nearer to the sources of supply. As a result of shortage of raw materials, the petitioner had been compelled to discontinue the working of his mill and to lay off its workmen and finally in January 1958 the business was practically closed and the workmen retrenched. On or about 13th January, 1958, 92 of its workmen employed in the said bone milk were retrenched and compensation was paid under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On or about 9th of April, 1959 the respondent No. 2, Nirmal Kumar Bhattacharjee claiming to be an official of a registered Trade Union, who had been authorised in writing by sixty-five workers of the petitioner, under Sub-section (2), Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 made an application before the respondent No. 1, the Authority appointed under the said Act for the State of West Bengal, claiming that proper compensation and gratuity, due -. to retrenchment made on 13-3-1958 had not been paid to the said workers aggregating to a sum of Rs. 13,184-54 np. Such an application was made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the said Act. The relevant provision is as follows:"where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of any 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 this behalf, or any Inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such Authority for a direction under Sub-section (3); Provided that every such application shall be presented within six months from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be; Provided further that any application may be permitted after the said period of six months when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period. "
( 2 ) PRIMA facie, the application was made out of time. The only excuse given for claiming exemption from the period of limitation was as follows:"the applicant made protracted negotiations with the opposite party and through the Labour Commissioner for settlement without any effect and ultimately this case is to be filed before this Court. In the circumstances the applicant prays that the delay may kindly be condoned. (Annexure "b" and "c") (Copies of two letters to the Labour Commissioner are filed herewith. The applicant craves leave of the Court to file the originals and other correspondence at the time of hearing on point of condonation of delay.)"
( 3 ) THE first letter, annexure "b" is dated 16th January, 1958 and is a copy of a letter supposed to have been sent by Nirmal Kumar Bhattacharji. describing himself as "secretary", to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, sending him a list of workers who were retrenched by the Empire Bone Mills, Bansberia, on several dates including 13-3-1958. It is stated therein that the workers were paid 13 days' wages per year of service as compensation, in place of 15 days' wages as per the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the workers were also entitled to get gratuity as per certain awards mentioned therein. The second letter, annexure "c" is a copy of a letter writte
AI
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
