Wanchoo, C.J.—Two questions have been referred by a learned single Judge for reply by a larger Bench and that is how the matter has come before us. These questions are—

(1) Whether the authority appointed by the State Government under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is a civil court subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2) Whether it would be proper for this Court to interfere with the orders of the said authority under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, to correct its orders.

2. The facts which have led to this reference may be briefly narrated. The opposite parties are in the employ of the applicant, namely the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara. The applicant imposed a fine on them for late coming on various dates and deducted the amount from the wages paid to them. Thereupon, the opposite parties applied to the District Magistrate, Bhilwara, who is the authority appointed under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act No. IV of 1936), hereinafter called the Act. The District Magistrate was of opinion that the deductions were improper and that the amount should be refunded to the opposite parties along with a certain amount as compensation. The order was not appealable under sec. 17 of the Act as the amount involved did not exceed Rs. 300/-. The applicant, therefore, came to this Court in revision under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in all the seventeen cases and that is how there were seventeen revisions in this Court.

3. When the matter came for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, a preliminary objection was taken that no revision lay under sec, 115 of the Civil Procedure Code as the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was not a civil court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of sec. 115 C.P.C. As there was difference of opinion between various High Courts on this question., the learned single Judge has thought it fit to refer the two questions, which, in his opinion, arose for decision and which we have set out above.

4. We shall take the first question in the beginning, namely whether the authority appointed by the State Government under sec. 15 of the Act is a civil court. If it is a civil court, a revision will naturally lie under sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to this Court from the orders of the authority in appropriate cases. There are two views prevalent in the High Courts in India in this connection. One view is represented by the Patna and Lahore High Courts. In the case of Mst. Dirji vs. Smt. Goalin(l) the Patna High Court decided that a Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act was a civil court. In the case of Works Manager, Carriage Wagon Soaps, Moghalpura vs. K. G. Hashmat(2), the Lahore High Court decided that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was a civil court.

5. The other view is represented by the Bombay, Nagpur and Allahabad High Courts. The Bombay High Court decided in The Manager, The Spring Mills Ltd. vs. G. D. Ambekar(3) that the authority under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not a civil court. That court was following its earlier decision in another case to the effect that the Commissioner appointed under the Workmens Compensation Act was not a civil court. The Nagpur High Court in the case of Sawatram Ramprasad Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Vishnu Pandurang Hingnekar(4) also took the view that the authority under sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was not a civil court. The same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of H.C.D. Mathur, Secretary of the National Fedration of Railway vs. E.I. Rly. Administration through its GeneralManager(5). What we have to see, therefore, is as to which of these views is the better view and should be followed by this Court.

6. We are of opinion that the batter view is that taken by the Bombay. Nagpur and Allahabad High Courts and that we should follow that view. In that connection, we purpose to examine, with a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document