Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 584
High Court Of Calcutta
ARUN KUMAR MITRA
SUNITI BALA BAKSHI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
S. A. 3527 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/24/2003
M.P.BANERJI, S.DAS GUPTA, S.K.DAS GUPTA, TARUN CHANDRA DUTTA
A civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of wages or deductions from wages that could have been adjudicated under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTIONS 15 AND 22 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF WAGES OR DEDUCTIONS - EXPRESS BAR - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's predecessor-in-interest, an employee of the respondent railway, filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, and arrears of pay. The suit was dismissed by both the trial court and the appellate court on the ground that it was not maintainable due to the express bar under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable due to the express bar under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which prohibits civil courts from entertaining suits for the recovery of wages or deductions from wages that could have been adjudicated under Section 15 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had complied with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had any cause of action for the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree for declaration of accounts and mandatory injunction as prayed? 5. To what relief, if any, were the plaintiffs entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Athmanatha Swami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Aiyangar (AIR 1965 SC 338) to hold that when there is an express bar under Section 22 of the Act, the civil court should first decide on the question of jurisdiction and return the plaint if it lacks jurisdiction, rather than proceeding on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and directed the trial court to return the plaint, holding that the suit was not maintainable under Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 7th Court at alipur in T. A. No. 157/83 affirming the judgment and decree passed, by Sri Tapas Kr. Ghosh, learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipur in t. S. No. 175/74.
( 2 ) THIS second appeal originates from a suit for declaration along with prayer for mandatory injunction for granting arrears of pay and for rendering accounts.
( 3 ) THE facts in brief as made out in the plaint is inter alia as follows: the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant Subodh Ch. Bakshi was an employee under South-Eastern Railway, the defendants herein. He was a clerk and he retired from service with effect from forenoon of 1/11/1962. After his retirement on 15/12/1962 the District Mechanical Engineer/south eastern Railway, Chakradharpur issued a service certificate and certified his service conduct as good during the period of his service from 8/03/1930 to 31/10/1962.
( 4 ) DURING the tenure of his service according to him he was suspended illegally in may 1950 allegedly for not applying for railway pass for proceeding on transfer and chargesheet was issued against him in this regard. The said Subodh Ch. Bakshi filed a suit against the defendant Railway being T. S. No. 320/1952 in the 1 st Court of Munsif at Howrah challenging the order of discharge and the suit was decreed in his favour on 6/09/1954 and the said order of discharge was declared illegal, void and inoperative. The defendant railway preferred appeal against the judgment and decree and the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. upheld the judgment of the learned Munsif on' 27/05/1995 passed in Title Appeal No. 280/54. But the defendants did not give effect to the orders passed by the learned Munsif and that of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Howrah by reinstating said Sri Bakshi immediately after the judgment in appeal was passed. Said Sri bakshi (presently deceased) made various representations and ultimately the defendants reinstated him on 19/03/1958. He was again suspended from service from the same date that is on and from 19/03/1958. This time in the departmental proceeding said Sri bakshi was found not guilty. But he was deprived of the amount of the arrears of pay during the period of suspension for the period from 1950 to June 1959. His salary was not refixed and promotion and increments of salary were not given also to him for this long period of suspension. Upon the representation made by him in this regard he was given assurance of his full pay and benefits admissible to him and as such he did not institute any further suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs further alleged that the South Eastern Railwaymen's congress (Union) took up this matter and made representations to the Railway authority for redressal for the grievance of said Sri Bakshi. Thereafter sometime in March 1971 said Sri bakshi received a letter from the Chief personnel Officer by which the defendants admitted their liability in part, raising a false debit according to the plaintiff for the sum of rs. 7,736. 91. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants made certain other illegal deductions from the said amount due to him. In the said letter the Chief Personnel Officer intimated Sri Bakshi that the period of suspension could not be period spent on duty though as a matter of fact Sri Bakshi was never held guilty in any subsequent departmental proceedings or by any judgment of Court of law. The amount offered to Sri Bakshi by the defendants was too meagre and according to him this is because of debit, illegal deduction and denial of full pay, gratuity and other benefits admissible to him and as such he made further representation to the South Eastern railway through the said Union. The defendant no. 2 upon a discussion with the General secretary of the Railwaymen's Congress (Union) had agreed to refer the matter to the railway Board but subsequently he went back on
