Back
1998 Supreme(Gau) 154
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Manipur State Road Transport Corporation -Appellant
Versus
M.Rajendra Singh and Other -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 184 of 1990
Decided On : 29-05-1998
N.Jotendro Singh, N.Ibotombi Singh, L.Shyam Kishore Singh
The Deputy Labour Commissioner was validly appointed as the authority under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, and his award was therefore valid.
Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - SECTION 15(1) - DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER - APPOINTMENT AS AUTHORITY - VALIDITY - DE FACTO DOCTRINE - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of an award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Manipur, claiming that he was not the authority contemplated under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner was validly appointed as the authority under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, and that his award was therefore valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner was validly appointed as the authority under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. 2. Whether the award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court noted that the Deputy Labour Commissioner was appointed as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the whole of Manipur by a notification dated 4th November, 1984. 2. The court further noted that a notification dated 14th September, 1971, provided that persons appointed as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation shall also be deemed to be the Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act. 3. The court held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, as the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, was therefore also the authority under section 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act. 4. The court also held that the petitioner could not challenge the jurisdiction of the Deputy Labour Commissioner on the ground that he was not validly appointed, as no objection was taken on this ground before the authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
2.1 have heard Sri N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N. Jotindro Singh, learned Advocate who assisted this Court as Amicus Curiae and Shri L. Shymkishor Singh, learned Govt.. Advocate for the respondents. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits as follows:
(i) The Deputy Labour Commissioner was never appointed as the authority under section 15 (1) of Payment Wages Act.
(ii) That in the award benefits have been given to certain persons who are not entitled to this benefit.
3. It may be stated herein that an application was filed by 272 persons before the respondent No. 1 claiming it to be the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the reliefs claimed in that application. That is Annexure A/1 to the writ application. In that application also the list of persons with the amount available to them was also annexed. The whole controversy in this case arose because of the orders by the Governor of Manipur vide Annexure A/2 to the writ application that is quoted below :
"Government of Manipur :: Finance Department
(Pay Implementation Cell) Orders by the Governor : Manipur
Imphal, the 18th January 1988.
No.3/9/86-PIC(Pt): In continuation of this Government's notification of even number dated 30.12.1987 regarding the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the arrears of pay drawn by any Government servant in respect of the relevant period i.e. from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987, shall be deposited to the General Provident Fund Account of the Government servant and no withdrawal shall be allowed from this amount for a period of one year from the date of deposition to the General Provident Fund Account of the employee. However, the arrear amount of revised pay effective from 1.1.1986 shall be paid in cash to those employees who ceased to be in Government service during the relevant period.
2. It is further ordered that the said amount to be deposited/credited in the General Provident Fund Account of the Government servant should be the remaining balance after adjusting the outstanding Licence Fee (House Rent) if any, referred to under Finance Department's Officer Memorandum No.2/10/78-PIC dated 1.1.1988."
4. This order was also accepted by the Corporation. On 9.1.90 the authority issued a notice and on receipt of the notice the Addl Labour Officer of the Corporation appeared before the authority. No show cause was submitted to Addl Labour Officer and he examined himself and he admitted to the claim of the workmen and submitted the amount due shall be deposited. Thereafter, an inquiry was made by the authority and on inquiry it was found that no such amount was deposited as claimed by the Addl Labour Officer of the Corporation. Thereafter, the matter was heard and the award was passed.
5. To consider the first contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner, one should have a look at the notification dated 17th April, .1970, Annexure A/5 to the writ application by that notification certain Deputy Commissioners, as mentioned therein by notification, were appointed to be the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thereafter on 14th September, 1971 a notification was issued by the authority that the persons appointed as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act shall be the authority to hear and decide under the said Payment of Wages Act, 1936, all claims arising out of deduction from the award or delay in the payment of wages to the persons/employee. Thereafter, on 4th November, 1984 vide Annexure A/7 the authority published a notification in the Gazette that whether the power which was earlier given to the Deputy Commissioner appointing them as Commissioner under the Workm
