SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Raj) 251

WANCHOO, DAVE
Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. , Bhilwara – Appellant
Versus
Girdhari Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Chandmal, for petitioner; Kistoormal, for non-petitioners

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 wi

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top