The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the legal requirements outlined in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and its associated rules for filing an appeal.

1. This Civil Revision is directed against judgment dated 11-10-2004 of learned Additional District Judge, Doda, whereby he has rejected the appeal of the appellant/petitioner.

2. Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan appearing for the petitioner submits that learned Additional District Judge, Doda, has erred in rejecting the appeal on technical pleas. His first submission is that there is no legal requirement of accompanying memo of appeal with a certified copy of the order. According to learned counsel, Additional District Judge was not right in rejecting the appeal on the ground that memo of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the award appealed against.

3. Shri S.S. Ahmad appearing for the respondents has, however, controverted the pleas raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

4. Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, do not support the submission of Shri Chouhan. Rule 12 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, specifically provides that a memo of appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order passed under Section 15.

5. In view of the clear position of the Rules, the appeal filed by the appellant, cannot be held to be a valid appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Doda, has thus correctly applied the law on the subject, in directing the rejection of the appeal on the aforesaid ground. The plea raised by Shri Chouhan, thus, fails.

6. The second plea raised by Shri Chouhan is that even if the appeal of the appellant was not accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the order appealed against, the appeal could not be rejected in view of the subsequent deposit made by the appellant before the authority.

Section 17 (1A) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, prescribes as follows:

Section 17 (1A) "No appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the direction appealed against."

In view of what is contained in Section I 7 (1A), the argument of Shri Chouhan cannot be accepted, because this Section opens with a non-obstante clause regarding the non-maintainability of an appeal in the absence of a certificate by the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the order appealed against.

7. In the present case, neither the appellant deposited the amount with the authority nor was the memo of appeal accompanied by the requisite certificate. The deposit of the amount, too, has been made by the appellant on 29th March, 2003, i.e., after a period of more than one month of the filing of the appeal.

8. No fault can, thus, be found with the discussion made by learned Additional District Judge, Doda, on the issues decided by him. The Additional District Judge is right in holding that the memo of appeal unaccompanied by the requisite certificate of the award is no appeal in the eyes of law. The conclusion reached al by the learned Additional District Judge, Doda, cannot, thus, be faulted. Submission of Shri Chouhan is, thus, rejected.

No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this Revision Petition.

Both the pleas raised by the petitioner have failed. There is, thus, no force in this Revision Petition, which is accordingly rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document