Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.BALIA
NAGAUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BONK LTD, NAGAUR THROUGH ITS MANAGING Director - Appellant
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF WAGES ACT, BIKANER REGION, BIKANER - Respondent
S. B. C. W. P. 5732 Of 1992
Decided On : 04/15/1994
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 22F - MINIMUM WAGES ACT - APPLICABILITY TO BANKING ESTABLISHMENT - SECTION 7(1) - SUSPENSION PENDING ENQUIRY - LIMITATION - SECTION 15(2) - SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY - SECTION 7(2)(C) - DEDUCTIONS FOR DAMAGES OR LOSS - ADJUSTMENT OF SALARY AGAINST OUTSTANDING AMOUNT - EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP - CADRE AUTHORITY - PRIMARY AGRICULTURE SOCIETY - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION - ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Banking Society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, was directed by the Payment of Wages Authority to pay wages to the respondent, a Manager appointed by the Rajasthan Cooperative Credit Institutions Cadre Authority Ltd., for the period during which he was suspended. The Authority held that the suspension was illegal and that the petitioner was liable to pay full wages for the period of suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Payment of Wages Act was applicable to the petitioner's establishment by virtue of a Notification issued under Section 22f of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which extended the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act to scheduled employments, including Shops and Commercial Establishments. The Court also held that the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide upon the legality of the suspension order while deciding a case under the Payment of Wages Act and that the Authority erred in ignoring the fact that a person who had been kept under suspension during the pendency of an enquiry was entitled to wages permissible under the relevant rules for the period of suspension.
Issues: 1. Whether the Payment of Wages Act was applicable to the petitioner's establishment? 2. Whether the Authority had jurisdiction to decide upon the legality of the suspension order? 3. Whether the Authority erred in ignoring the fact that a person who had been kept under suspension during the pendency of an enquiry was entitled to wages permissible under the relevant rules for the period of suspension? 4. Whether the respondent's application was barred by limitation? 5. Whether the respondent had sufficient cause for not making the application within time? 6. Whether the deductions made from the respondent's salary were permissible under Section 7(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act? 7. Whether the petitioner could be considered as an employer of the respondent for the purpose of Payment of Wages?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Payment of Wages Act was applicable to the petitioner's establishment by virtue of a Notification issued under Section 22f of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which extended the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act to scheduled employments, including Shops and Commercial Establishments. 2. The Court held that the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide upon the legality of the suspension order while deciding a case under the Payment of Wages Act. 3. The Court held that the Authority erred in ignoring the fact that a person who had been kept under suspension during the pendency of an enquiry was entitled to wages permissible under the relevant rules for the period of suspension. 4. The Court held that the respondent's application was barred by limitation. 5. The Court held that the respondent had not shown sufficient cause for not making the application within time. 6. The Court held that the deductions made from the respondent's salary were permissible under Section 7(2)(c) of the Payment of Wages Act. 7. The Court held that the petitioner could not be considered as an employer of the respondent for the purpose of Payment of Wages.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Authority and directed the Authority to decide the respondent's application in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place all material before him.
RAJESH BALIA, J.
( 1 ) THIS petition has arisen in the following circumstances : the petitioner is a Banking Society registered under the Rajasthan co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short the Act of 1965 hereinafter ). Respondent No. 2 Hari Ram was appointed as manager of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti by the Rajasthan Cooperative credit Institutions Cadre Authority Ltd. , Jaipur. The salaries to the Managers of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samitis were dispursed by the petitioner Bank on behalf of the Rajasthan co-operative Credit Institutions Cadre Authority Ltd t Jaipur.
( 2 ) A Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1018/79 Kheda Rasulpur Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on May 9, 1991 held that establishment of the Cadre authority as a Co-operative Society was against the provisions of Section 6 of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1965 and there cannot be any centralised service or a common cadre of the Managers appointed at various primary agriculture co-operative society. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner Bank is not under an obligation to make payment on behalf of the Authority to the Manages appointed by the Cadre Authority but the primary agriculture society where such Managers have been appointed, is directly responsible for making the payment of their emoluments as the real rilationship of employeremployee exists between the employer society and the Manager.
( 3 ) IN the present case, respondent No 2 has moved an application before the Payment of Wages Authority Bikaner (for short the Authority hereinafter), on May 30, 1991 under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages act, 1936, (for short the Act of 1936 hereinafter), for recovery of the wages from the petitioner Bank for the period from January 1985 to August 1987, April 1988 to November 1988, January 1989 to March 1989 and from october 5. 1989 to April 1991 alleging that the petitioner has illegally deducted the wages for the aforesaid period.
( 4 ) IT was alleged that for the aforesaid period prior to October 5, 1989 full wages were deducted, after October 5, 1989 50% of the wages were illegally deducted by alleging that the suspension of the respondent No. 2 was illegal.
( 5 ) THOUGH the authorised representative of the petitioner appeared on May 3, 1991 and June 6, 1991, he could not appear on June 20, 1991. As a result of his absence, the Authority passed an ex- parte order on october 5, 1991 directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 46,230/-on account of illegal deduction of wages and Rs. 92,460/- as compensation for illegal deductions totaling Rs 1,38,690/ -.
( 6 ) THE Authority held that for the period January 1985 to August 1987 april 1988 to November 1988 and from January 1989 to March 1989 full emoluments were illegally deducted and from October 5, 1989 to April 1991, when the applicant, respondent No. 2 was under suspension, 50% of the wages were illegally deducted holding that suspension was illegal. Rs. 630/-were held payable on account of annual grade increments and Rs. 610/-as House Rent Allowance from April 5, 1989 to April 30, 1991.
( 7 ) IT is this order which has been challenged in this petition.
( 8 ) NO return has been filed.
( 9 ) THE first contention of the petitlonr was that the Authority under payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by respondent No. 2 It was urged that petitioner, which is engaged in the business of Bank, in neither a Factory nor a Railway Administration nor an industry specified under sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Act of 1936 nor there is any Notification, either of the Central government or of the State Government, declaring the establishment like the petitioner as an Industrial Establishment within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) (h) of the Act of 1936. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1936 are not applicable to the petitioners establishment.
( 10 ) THE aforesaid facts
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
