Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.N.Wanchoo,I.N.Modi
JASWANTSINGH - Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT JUDGE, MAHSANA - Respondent
Civil Writ 7 Of 1957
Decided On : 11/05/1957
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - SECTION 17 - AMENDMENT BY BOMBAY LEGISLATURE - CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER ORDER APPEALED AGAINST - NOT REQUIRED IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER PASSED BEFORE AMENDMENT OR IN APPEAL FILED AFTER AMENDMENT BUT RELATING TO ORDER PASSED BEFORE AMENDMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The Divisional Personnel Officer of the Western Railway filed two writ petitions challenging the order of the Assistant Judge, Mehsana, dismissing appeals filed by the Railway against orders passed under the Payment of Wages Act on the ground that the appeals were incompetent in view of an amendment to Section 17 of the Act by the Bombay Legislature, which required the memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by a certificate of deposit of the amount payable under the order appealed against.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Assistant Judge erred in law in holding that the appeals were not maintainable. It held that the amendment to Section 17 could not apply to the appeal against the order passed on 30-4-1954, as the order was passed before the amendment came into effect. It also held that the amendment did not apply to the appeal against the order passed on 30-9-1954, as the case was covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 221.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act by the Bombay Legislature was valid. 2. Whether the certificate of deposit of the amount payable under the order appealed against was required in an appeal against an order passed before the amendment came into effect. 3. Whether the certificate of deposit was required in an appeal filed after the amendment but relating to an order passed before the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court did not decide whether the amendment to Section 17 was valid or not. 2. The court held that the certificate of deposit was not required in an appeal against an order passed before the amendment came into effect. 3. The court held that the certificate of deposit was not required in an appeal filed after the amendment but relating to an order passed before the amendment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of the Assistant Judge, Mehsana, and sent the appeals back to the District Judge, Pali, for hearing on the merits.
K. N. WANCHOO, C. J.
( 1 ) THESE are two connected writs by the Divisional Personnel Officer of the western Railway at Aimer under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari in connection with a matter under the Payment of Wages Act. The applications were originally filed in the High Court of Bombay and have come to this Court under Section 64 (2) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956.
( 2 ) IT is not necessary for present purposes to set out in detail the case of the parties. Suffice it to say that an application was made by Bal Krishna Maheshwari, opposite Party No. 3, who was in the service of the Western Railway at Abu Road, on 7-7-1952 under the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority having jurisdiction in the matter viz. the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Abu Road, Balkrishna maheshwari claimed that his wages had been illegally deducted and prayed for relief under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The matter was enquired into by the Authority concerned and an order in favour of balkrishna Maheshwari was passed on 30-4-1954. Thereupon there was an appeal to the District Court at Mehsana under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which was disposed of by the Assistant Judge of Mehsana on 31-7-1956. another application was made on 18-2-1953 and this was decided by the Civil Judge, junior Division on :30-9-1954. The appeal in this case also was disposed of by the same judgment dated 31-7-1956. The Assistant Judge held that the appeals were incompetent in view of an amendment of Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act by the Bombay legislature. He, therefore, dismissed the appeals without going into the merits of the case-
( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY, these two applications were filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the correctness of the order of the Assistant Judge, Mehsana as to the competency of the appeals, and also challenging other matter with which, however, we are not concerned at this stage.
( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of Balkrishna Maheshwari as to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear these writs and also as to the competency of Jaswant Singh, Divisional Personnel Officer, Ajmer, to file these writs.
( 5 ) WE shall first consider this preliminary objection. It is urged that the Divisional personnel Officer, Ajmer is not competent to file these writs because he is not the person who was responsible for paying wages to Balkrishna, Maheshwari in october 1956 when the writ applications were filed. It appears that between the decision of 31-7-1956 and the date on which the writ applications were filed, there was re-organization on the Western Railway and the district system was replaced by the Divisional System. In consequence, the Abu road area, in which Balkrishna Maheshwari was serving at the relevant time, came under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Personnel Officer at Ajmer. An order was passed by the General Manager, Western Railway on 6-10-1956 in which it was provided that the Divisional Personnel Officer would be the Pay-Master for purposes of the Payment of Wages Act for workers in the divisional units working under them with effect from 1-8-1956. The argument is that Balkrishna Maheshwari was not working under1 the divisional Personnel Officer, Ajmer, in October 1956 when these writ applications were filed and that he was working in another Division and, therefore, the divisional Personnel Officer of that Division whore Balkrishna Muheshwari was working would be the proper pay Master for him under the Payment of Wages Act and would thus be the proper person to file these writ applications. We are of opinion that there is no force in this argument. The order of 6-10-1956 applies, in "bur opinion, prcspectively to wages to be paid from 1-8-1956 and onwards. This case relates to a period long before 1-8-1956 when Balkrishna maheshwari was serving in Abu Road. That area has admittedly now come under the charge of the Divisional Personnel Off
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
