The main legal point established is that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 do not apply to teachers in educational institutions, and therefore, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated March 30, 1993 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) passed by prescribed Authority under the Provisions of payment of Wages Act, 1936inp. W. Caseno. 74 of 1991 Pramila Devi v. District Basic education Officer, Jhansi and others whereby the prescribed authority has allowed the application of respondent No. 2 under Section 15 (2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and granted a sum of Rs. 1,45,376. 00 as arrears of wage for the period claimed and equal sum of rs. 1,45,376. 00 as compensation thus total amount in tune of Rs. 2,90,752. 00 along with rs. 200. 00 cost.

( 2 ) THE relief claimed in the writ petition rests on the allegation that some posts of assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School run by Basic Shiksha Parishad fell vacant in District jhansi. To fill up the aforesaid posts advertisement was made, inviting applications from desirous candidates. In pursuance thereof several applications were received including that of respondent No. 2. Selection was conducted by duly constituted Selection committee and respondent No. 2 stood at serial number 15 in the select list and accordingly she was offered appointment vide letter dated march 27, 1991 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition), in pursuance thereof she joined the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic School and after having joined the post she moved an application stating that she had been appointed and worked as untrained Assistant Teacher in primary School with effect from January 31, 1967 to July 24, 1969, thereafter she was sent for B. T. C. training on July 24, 1969 and on completion of her B. T. C. training she has resumed her earlier post on July 1, 1972. Thereafter, she requested to change her status as trained teacher instead of untrained teacher but authorities did not pay any heed over the matter. Thus the Respondent No. 2 continued to work on her original post without any payment of her salary and compelled to move said application before Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 at Jhansi vide P. W. Suit No. 74 of 1991.

( 3 ) IN reply to the various averments to the application of respondent No. 2 a counter affidavit/written statement had been filed by petitioner No. 2 before the Prescribed authority and a rejoinder affidavit was also filed by respondent No. 2 thereon. Thereupon vide order dated March 30, 1993, (Annexure-1 of the writ petition), passed by the respondent no. 1, the claim of respondent No. 2 was allowed and sum of Rs. 2,90,752/- was granted as arrears of salary including compensation to her, hence this petition.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated March 30, 1993 on various grounds including the applicability of provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and on question of limitation and jurisdiction of prescribed Authority to adjudicate the dispute in question, besides the claim of respondent no. 2 on merits.

( 5 ) IN reply to the allegations made in the writ petition a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 wherein the stand taken by her in nut shell has been stated in para 3 to 12 and para 16 before giving para-wise reply of the writ petition as under:"3. That the humble deponent was originally appointed as a Primary School teacher by the Competent Authority vide appointment order dated January 27, 1969 and accordingly she joined on January 31, 1969. The true copy of the appointment order is being filed and marked as Annexure c. A.-I to this affidavit. "4. That since the humble deponent was unqualified, she was directed through letter dated July 24, 1969 to qualify in the prescribed training. It was specifically cited while sending her for training that in case she does not proceed for training, her services shall be terminated. The true copy of the letter dated July 24, 1969 is being filed and marked as Annexure C. A.- II to this affidavit. 5. That from the contents of the above letter dated July 24,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document