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

1995 Supreme(Ori) 92

ARIJIT PASAYAT
SAUMYA RANJAN PATNAIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BIPIN BEHARI MOHANTY

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.


( 1 ) :- The only point involved in this application is whether application made by the com plainant in terms of S. 15 (3) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short, the 'act') can be treated as a criminal complaint, or has to be dealt with by the concerned Court according to procedure applicable to a Court of Civil jurisdiction.

( 2 ) SECTION 15 of the Act deals with claims arising out of deductions from wages, or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vaxatious claims. State Government is empowered to appoint by a notification in the Official Gazette Presiding Officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'industrial Act') or under any corresponding law relating to investigation and settle ment of industrial disputes in force in the State, or any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the auth ority 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 or paid in that area including all matter incidental to such claims. Sub-section



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