Jurisdiction of Commissioner to determine validity of the order of termination.

ORDER : -This revision is against the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing an appeal by the petitioner under S.17(1) (b) of the Payment of Wages Act, 4 of 1936.

2. The petitioner was employed as a stenographer with the respondents, the Sembiam Saw Mills Ltd., on a salary of Rs.85 per month and a dearness allowance of Rs.35. Early in December 1950, he applied for leave for a week, which was sanctioned. But before the expiry of the week he wrote to the respondents that he extended his leave by a further period of one week. The respondents informed him by their letter dated 11-12-1050 that he should join duty on or before 13-12-1950.

The petitioner states that he received that letter only on 17-12-1950, and in reply he wrote a letter stating that he was extending his leave by another fortnight from the 18th December. On 3-1-1951, after the reopening of the Mills in the new year, the petitioner presented himself for work and on that day the respondents paid his salary till 31-12-1950, and intimated him that he was under suspension pending enquiry into his conduct for having continued to absent himself without permission.

There was an enquiry and he was finally discharged from service by an order dated 13-2-1951 by which his services were terminated as and from 1-1-1951.

The petitioner applied to the Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act and claimed a sum of Rs.160 as salary and dearness allowance for January 1951, Rs.80 as salary for 13 days in February 1951, Rs.63 as salary for the privilege leave period of 11 days and Rs.960 for damages. He thus inflated his claim to a sum of Rs.1263. He claimed that the wages were delayed by his employers and prayed for an order from the Commissioner for payment of the amount claimed.

The claim for salary for January and for the 13 days in February was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not work during that period. So also the claim for damages. But as regards the wages for the period of 11 days during which he claimed to be entitled to privilege leave, an order for payment of Rs.36-8-3 was made. The respondents have agreed to pay this sum.

As against this order of the Commissioner, the petitioner appealed and the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the Commissioner was right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for salary and dearness allowance for the period for which the petitioner was not admittedly working under the respondents, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in - A.R. Sarin (Controller of Stores, B.B. and C.I. Rly.) v. B.C. Patil, AIR 1951 Bom 423 (A), and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

3. The right of the petitioner to recover wages arises under S.15 of the Payment of Wages Act, and S.15 (1) of the Act provides that the Provincial Government may appoint any Commissioner for Workmens compensation as the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, of persons employed in that area.

It is sought to be argued that the failure to pay salary for the period from the 1st January, to the 13th February 1951 amounts to delaying payment of the wages and as such it is urged that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to enquire into the claim. Reliance is also placed on the definition of wages in the Act. "Wages" is defined as meaning

"all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed, or otherwise, to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his em